Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 30th July, 1954, for the Summer Recess—met at Half past Two o'Clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Ernest Thurtle, Esquire, Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

WRITS ISSUED DURING THE ADJOURNMENT

Mr. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had issued, during the Adjournment, Warrants for new Writs, viz.:

For Croydon, East, in the room of Sir Herbert Geraint Williams, baronet, deceased;

For Wakefield, in the room of the Right Honourable Arthur Greenwood, C.H., deceased;

For Shoreditch and Finsbury, in the room of Ernest Thurtle, Esquire, deceased;

For Aldershot, in the room of the Right Honourable Oliver Lyttelton, D.S.O., M.C., called up to the House of Peers;

For Aberdare, in the room of David Emlyn Thomas, Esquire, deceased;

For Morpeth, in the room of the Right Honourable Robert John Taylor, C.B.E., deceased.

NEW WRIT

For Sutton and Cheam, in the room of Sir Sidney Horatio Marshall (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Catering Wages (Tips)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Labour what considerations led him to approve the proposal of the Catering Wages Board by which tips are regarded as part of the basic wage.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Watkinson): The Catering Wages Act, 1943, requires my right hon. and learned Friend to make an Order to give effect to proposals submitted by a Wages Board unless he refers them back for reconsideration. He decided that there were no circumstances which would justify reference back in this case.

Mr. Robinson: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall how long it took the workers in the catering industry to get a square deal in the matter of wages? Does he not agree that this Order is definitely a retrograde step? Will he say what the view of the trade union concerned was?

Mr. Watkinson: The difficulty is that the Minister, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, has no power under the Act to amend proposals or to approve them in part. I would also remind the hon. Gentleman that in January, 1943, the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the Bill said that wages boards would be free to deal with tips in any way they thought necessary.

Mr. Callaghan: Can the hon. Gentleman say how much a week catering workers have lost as a result of this decision?

Mr. Watkinson: I will do so if the hon. Member will put that Question on the Order Paper.

Operatives and Supervisors (Training)

Mr. Orbach: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has yet considered the productivity report on the training of supervisors; and whether he is now prepared to put forward proposals in accordance with the recommendation of this report.

Mr. Watkinson: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) on 27th January, 1953. I am also sending the hon. Member a copy of a more recent report on this subject. We are carrying out its conclusions so far as they affect the Ministry of Labour's own work, and its recommendations have been brought to the notice of the industrial organisations concerned and the education authorities.

Mr. Orbach: Would the Minister take due note of the recommendations with regard to raising the status of supervisors, and also the question of awards of pay and differentials to that particularly important group of people in industry?

Mr. Watkinson: I hope the hon. Gentleman will read the report I am sending him. It is a good one and bears on that subject.

Colonial Immigrants

Mr. Steward: asked the Minister of Labour how many colonial immigrants are drawing unemployment benefit; and what plans have been drawn up to safeguard the employment of these British subjects in conjunction with the trades unions.

Mr. Watkinson: These immigrants cannot qualify for unemployment benefit until they have been employed in this country for at least 26 weeks. Separate statistics of the number in receipt of benefit are not maintained. As my hon. Friend recognises, they are British subjects, and we have not found that there is any need for special plans to safeguard their employment.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the Ministry of Labour get advance information through the Colonial Office that these immigrants are going to be dumped at the quayside or some London terminus without jobs or homes to go to, thus making it unnecessary for the employment exchanges and the local authorities to improvise the best arrangements they, can after they arrive?

Mr. Watkinson: I have already said that so far we have not found any particular difficulty in placing these men in employment.

Mr. Rankin: Could we be informed whether or not any of these immigrants have been employed by the Kitchen Committee?

Mr. Watkinson: Not without notice.

Mr. Remnant: asked the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to state the number of male persons from the West Indies whose first entry into this country was during 1954, who are now unemployed.

Mr. Watkinson: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.

Mr. Remnant: Despite that, could my hon. Friend give any indication whether the number is small or appreciable?

Mr. Watkinson: The difficulty is that, and I think very rightly, our employment exchanges do not differentiate in any way on grounds of colour and therefore we do not keep these statistics.

Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour (1) to state, to the latest convenient date, the number of persons unemployed in the Aberdeen shipbuilding, shiprepairing and agricultural implement factories; and
(2) how many men and women, respectively, are now unemployed in the City of Aberdeen; and in which trades.

Mr. Watkinson: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that, owing to the paucity of incoming orders to the shipyards, there is grave anxiety as to the future of employment in those yards, and will he keep an eye on the problem?

Mr. Watkinson: We will certainly keep an eye on the problem, but the present figures show that the area of the hon. and learned Gentleman is faring very well compared with many other areas in Scotland.

Following is the reply:

NUMBERS OF UNEMPLOYED PERSONS ON THE REGISTERS OF THE ABERDEEN EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE AND YOUTH EMPLOYMENT OFFICE AT 13TH SEPTEMBER, 1954


Industry
Males
Females
Total


All Industries and Services
…
…
1,296
531
1,827


Industries named in the Question:







Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing
…
…
38
—
38


Agricultural Machinery (except Tractors)
…
…
1
—
1


Principal Other Industries:







Distributive Trades
…
…
151
116
267


Fishing
…
…
158
—
158


Building and Civil Engineering Contracting
…
…
141
2
143


Food Industries
…
…
45
81
126


Catering, Hotels, etc.
…
…
47
73
120


Local Government Service
…
…
54
12
66


Sea Transport
…
…
61
—
61


Timber (Saw Milling, etc.)
…
…
46
6
52


Entertainment, Sport, etc.
…
…
47
5
52


Agriculture and Horticulture
…
…
47
5
52

Factory Inspectors

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour how many factory inspectors are attending at the College of Technology, Leicester, a course of training in elementary chemistry, physics and electricity; what is the duration of the course; and what is the cost in respect of each inspector, in terms of tuition fees, subsistence and travelling expenses, which are additional to the current salary.

Mr. Watkinson: Twelve inspectors are attending this course, which is to last for three terms of approximately 12 weeks each. The cost in tuition fees for each inspector will be about £130. Subsistence will cost approximately £150 for a married inspector and £80 for a single inspector; the cost of travelling will depend on where the officers in question are stationed.

Dr. Stross: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the institution of such a course is some evidence of failure to recruit suitably trained personnel, and will he not accept that it is more desirable to get proper scales of salaries so that applicants are properly trained when they come into the service?

Mr. Watkinson: But I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not disagree with me in this attempt to make the factory inspectorate better technically trained.

Miss Ward: Could I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I did not observe the hon. Lady rise.

Miss Ward: Could I be observed on the later Question?

Mr. Speaker: I have called the next Question.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made since 13th May, 1954, in the consideration of the claim for an increase in the salaries of the Chief Inspector of Factories, the deputy chiefs, and the superintending inspectors; and whether it is now agreed that the salary of the chief inspector shall be not less than that of the Chief Inspector of Mines or the Chief Inspector of Taxes.

Mr. Watkinson: The claim has been most carefully considered and the Association concerned have been informed that the Department cannot see their way to grant it.

Dr. Stross: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree with me that it is very invidious that there should be such a change as compared with pre-war practice when these scales were the same? Is not this really why we are having difficulty in securing suitable entrants—because the whole of the scales are depressed for everybody?

Mr. Watkinson: The Association is coming along to discuss the matter further on 8th November, and I do not think that I should express an opinion in the meantime.

Miss Ward: Will my hon. Friend have another go at the Treasury? Is he aware that for a very long time we have been anxious about factory inspectors and that the Treasury might be pressed to do something more for them than has been done in the past? It is a very important matter.

Mr. Watkinson: I hope that I shall maintain the Ministry's discretion in this matter.

Bus Workers' Strike, London

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement in respect of the London bus strike; and what official representations had previously been made by trade unions in respect of the issues involved.

The Minister of Labour and National Insurance (Sir Walter Monckton): For some time, London Transport have suffered from a shortage of staff in their road services, and this has made it difficult for services to be maintained without overtime and rest-day working.
Since the beginning of September, an increasing number of bus depots and garages have been affected by an unofficial ban on overtime and rest-day working to enforce demands made by an unofficial body for increased pay and improved working conditions. The ban led to restriction of services and new schedules were prepared to provide a regular service based on the number of staff available. They were to operate from 12 central area garages as from 13th October, but the staff at seven of these garages refused to work them and staff at other garages also stopped work.
Discussions were taking place, before the stoppage, between the London Transport Executive and the Transport and General Workers Union on the staff shortage problem. The Executive have made it clear that discussions with the Union will be restarted without delay on all matters which they may wish to raise when normal working is resumed.
The Transport and General Workers Union have consistently urged their members to resume normal working and, as the House will be aware, a substantial number have today returned to work following a conference of union delegates held yesterday. It is hoped that the remainder will soon be back at work.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say approximately what proportion of men came out on strike out of the total number involved, and how many are now back?

Sir W. Monckton: Perhaps, without notice, it is easier for me to deal with garages than with exact figures, if that will help the hon. Gentleman sufficiently. The strike was at 43 garages out of a total of 113, and the position early this morning was that work had been resumed at 15 of the 43 garages affected. It is understood that 14 of the remaining 28 garages have decided to resume work tomorrow. I do not know about the remaining 14 or so.

Notification of Vacancies Order

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Labour when it is proposed to rescind the Notification of Vacancies Order, 1952.

Mr. Watkinson: There is still a general shortage of labour in the country, and I am satisfied that the Order could not be revoked without detriment to the supply of labour for important work, particularly production for export.

Cardiff Dock (Working Turns)

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Minister of Labour how the average number of turns worked by Cardiff dockers in 1954 compares with the national average.

Mr. Watkinson: Up to 2nd October, Cardiff dock workers worked on an average 8·1 turns a week as compared with the national figure of 9·7 turns.

Mr. Callaghan: Will the Minister take note of the apprehension that these figures are causing in Cardiff? Will he consult the Minister of Transport to see whether some adjustments of road and railway charges would do something to bring Cardiff into line with other ports?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, I will certainly undertake that.

Professional and Clerical Workers (Salary Index)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on his proposals for a salary index for professional and clerical workers; and the range of professions, industries and services to be covered.

Mr. Watkinson: Following discussions with the industries concerned, arrangements have been made for collecting certain statistics relating to the earnings of salaried staff in national and local government service, including the educational, medical and dental services, and also in the coalmining, transport, gas and electricity industries. It is hoped to extend these arrangements to some other industries and services, but at present I am unable to give a complete list.

Mr. Palmer: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the very real concern among trade unions and organisations representing professional workers about the lack of any direct consultation with them on this matter? Has there been any consultation with the staff sides of the Whitley Councils?

Mr. Watkinson: This matter has been fully discussed in the National Joint Advisory Council and no doubt will come up again in due course.

Mr. Albu: Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that the inquiry on which the index is to be based uses a sufficiently wide sample of the class of persons to be covered by it?

Mr. Watkinson: That is exactly what we are looking into at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Mass Radiography

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Labour what percentage of men registered for National Service were examined by mass radiography prior to call-up in 1952 and 1953.

Mr. Watkinson: Of the men medically examined for National Service in 1952. 71 per cent. and in 1953 78 per cent. were examined by mass radiography.

Mr. Hastings: Is the Minister aware of the large number of cases of tuberculosis that are apparently contracted during National Service, and of the large amount that has to be paid in pensions as well as the great inconvenience and loss? Will he not give careful consideration to the examination of all recruits by mass radiography within a very short time of their starting National Service?

Mr. Watkinson: It is an important point, and I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that for the first three quarters of 1954 the percentage has gone up to just over 80 and that we hope to get it up higher still.

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Labour the average cost of attendance at mass radiography centres of men registered for National Service in 1952 and 1953.

Mr. Watkinson: Attendance at a mass radiography centre forms part of a man's medical examination and I regret that separate costs for that part of the examination are not available.

Mr. Hastings: Could the Minister give us any idea of the cost, which I believe to be comparatively small, and which would therefore make it well worth while that this examination should be carried out in the case of all recruits?

Mr. Watkinson: I have said that already we have it for over 80 per cent. of recruits and that we hope to make further progress.

Deferments

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Labour what number of men registered for National Service were granted deferment from call-up in 1952 and 1953 because of employment in the mercantile marine, coalmining and agriculture, respectively.

Mr. Watkinson: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:


—

Estimated numbers of men granted deferment in:



Merchant Navy
Coalmining
Agriculture


1952
…
5,700
10,800
7,800


1953
…
5,100
10,400
8,700

Personal Case

Mr. Proctor: asked the Minister of Labour if he will arrange for the cancellation of the decision to call up John Greasby of the Patricroft Conservative


Club, Eccles, for National Service, as he has served two years and three months as a gunner in the New Zealand forces, and has seen 19 months' service in Korea.

Mr. Watkinson: No decision on this case has yet been taken as inquiries into the facts are still proceeding. Meanwhile, the hon. Member can be assured that, subject to verification of the service in the New Zealand forces, there will be no question of calling upon Mr. Greasby to do further full-time service, but only part-time service on the Reserve.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST OF LIVING

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the growing concern at the rise this year in the cost-of-living index; and what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to reduce it to the level of October, 1951, at 129 points.

Mr. Watkinson: The Interim Index of Retail Prices fell to 144 in August and to 143 in September when it was only 2·4 per cent. above the level of September, 1953. Between September, 1952, and September, 1953, the index rose by 2·6 per cent. The Government will continue to pursue the policies which have been responsible for this degree of stability in retail prices during the last two years.

Mr. Dodds: But can the hon. Gentleman deny that the present position, despite what he has said, is that the figure is three points higher than it was on 1st January, 1954, five points higher than on 1st January, 1953, and 14 points higher than when the present Government took office? Does it mean that when the Chancellor said the Government would stabilise prices, it will be in the 140's and not around 129, as it was when they came into office?

Mr. Watkinson: I think the hon. Gentleman does not quite understand what we mean by levelling up. Perhaps I ought to add that in June this year, for the first time since the war, the index of wages drew level with the index of prices—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about the old-age pensioners?"]—and in the past 12 months the index of weekly wage rates has risen 4·3 per cent. compared with a 2·4 per cent. rise in the Index of Retail Prices.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Can my hon. Friend tell the House how much the cost of living rose under the misrule of the Socialist Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON DOCKS (STRIKES)

Mr. Robens: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement about the dock strike.

Sir W. Monckton: With permission, I will make a statement after Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Battery-run Locomotives (Discussions)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the nature and result of his conversations with the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation and the Scottish Hydro-Electric authorities which were directed towards using Scottish electricity to charge batteries for battery-run locomotives on Scottish railways; and when and where he expects such locomotives to be available for use on Scottish railways.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): I have had no such conversations. I understand, however, that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board have raised the matter with the British Transport Commission and that further discussions are in view.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that he has been widely credited with taking these progressive measure? If he has not taken them, will he have such conversations, because this matter is vitally important to industry and amenities in all Scotland?

Mr. Stuart: It will be clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has to provide electric power and it is for the British Transport Commission to look after the transport service. They are already in consultation.

South of Scotland Electricity Board (Women)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from the


Scottish Council of the Electrical Association for Women, regarding the appointment of women to the new South of Scotland Electricity Board; and what reply he has made.

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received respecting representation on the Scottish Electricity Board to be set up in the near future.

Mr. J. Stuart: The Scottish Council of the Electrical Association for Women have suggested that the point of view of women consumers of electricity should be represented by women on the new Board. I have replied that I shall keep this view in mind in the event of the Electricity Reorganisation (Scotland) Bill becoming law. No other general representations have been received.

Teachers' Salaries (Further Education)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Working Party on Salaries in Further Education has reported yet.

Mr. J. Stuart: No, Sir, but I hope that it will be possible for the Working Party to report by December.

Schools (Corporal Punishment)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consult local authorities and teachers' organisations with a view to promoting the progressive abolition of corporal punishment in Scottish schools.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a memorandum on "The Primary School in Scotland" published in 1950, which gave education authorities and their staffs advice on the question of punishment. In my view this advice, which recognises that there are occasions when corporal punishment is justified, still holds good and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by consultations designed to promote the abolition of corporal punishment.

Mr. Thomson: Has the attention of the Secretary of State been drawn to recent correspondence in the "Scotsman," in which widespread anxiety was expressed in the extent of corporal punishment in Scottish schools? Is he aware

that Scotland lags a long way behind England in this matter and even further behind other civilised countries of the world?

Mr. Stuart: I read the correspondence with interest, and it struck me that there was a great difference of opinion among a number of the correspondents.

Fishing Industry (Small Ports Marketing Scheme)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has received from the White Fish Authority for the assistance of inshore fishermen over the marketing and transport of fish.

Mr. J. Stuart: The Authority have consulted Departments informally about a draft Small Ports Marketing Scheme which, I understand, they propose to publish under the statutory procedure in accordance with which it would thereafter be formally submitted to Ministers for approval. In the meantime, however, the Authority have helped inshore fishermen in a variety of ways, for instance, by assisting mutual trading associations and helping to negotiate reduced transport rates.

Mr. Grimond: In view of the fact that there has been an announcement of a welcome reduction of freight rates from Aberdeen, can the Secretary of State say whether there is to be a general reduction in the North of Scotland, and particularly in respect of sea-borne freights? If not, can the right hon. Gentleman persuade the White Fish Authority to do all they can to reduce the freights as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Stuart: I am sure that the White Fish Authority are most anxious to do so. In 1952, they considered a scheme for a flat rate transport charge, but abandoned it owing to objections. I know that the Authority will resume their efforts.

Livestock Producers, Scottish Islands (Assistance)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can now announce the details of the assistance which is to be offered by Her Majesty's Government to crofters and farmers in the Scottish islands towards the freight on livestock.

Mr. J. Stuart: The special assistance to agricultural producers in the Scottish Islands will depend on their returns during the current financial year and the extent of their disadvantage compared with distant producers on the mainland.

Mr. Grimond: When the Secretary of State considers the matter further, will he bear in mind that producers in outer islands within groups of islands find it particularly difficult to market to the best advantage?

Mr. Stuart: I will certainly bear that in mind. This scheme is intended, of course, to assist these islands.

Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to make a statement in regard to the recommendations and views of the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs.

Mr. J. Stuart: The Report of the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs is receiving careful consideration at the present time, and I hope that it will be possible to make a statement very shortly.

Sir T. Moore: While thanking my right hon. Friend, may I ask whether it is too late to ask him to stress to members of the Commission our gratitude in this House for their very wise, constructive and balanced report?

Mr. Stuart: I have already informed the House, in reply to a Question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), that I have written to the Commission to express my appreciation.

Mr. Woodburn: When the right hon. Gentleman is ready to make a statement, will he arrange with the Leader of the House that time should be provided to discuss this important Report and the recommendations?

Mr. Stuart: I will certainly bear that in mind.

Mr. Rankin: Will the debate or discussion take place in association with the statement?

Mr. Stuart: Probably. It is not a matter for me but for the Leader of the House, but the House might wish to consider the statement before debate.

Doctors' Surgeries (Standards)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many complaints have come to his notice in the last year concerning unsatisfactory conditions in doctors' surgeries; and what steps are being taken to improve the situation.

Mr. J. Stuart: I have received one such complaint. The representatives of the medical profession are themselves anxious to ensure high standards in accommodation, and I am discussing with them arrangements for a general survey of consulting rooms so that improvements may be made where necessary.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the Minister realise that although he has had just one complaint that is no reason for complacency? Is he aware that a case has come to my notice of persons having to stand outside because there is no room in the surgery? Will he try to speed up this investigation into surgeries?

Mr. Stuart: I will certainly do my best.

Doctors and Dentists (Offences)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many doctors and dentists, respectively, have been found guilty of offences within the National Health Service in each of the past five years; and whether he will take steps to ensure that full publicity is given to the names of such offenders.

Mr. J. Stuart: Since July, 1948, two doctors and four dentists in Scotland have been excluded from practice in the National Health Service. Sums of money have been withheld from remuneration on 44 occasions involving 43 doctors, and on 148 occasions involving 92 dentists, in respect of breaches of their terms of service. I will circulate yearly figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Full publicity is given to cases involving exclusion from practice, but it would not as a rule be fair to the practitioner or in the public interest to publish names in other cases.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister give a reason for that? Is there any good reason why the name of a doctor or dentist who in effect is sabotaging the National Health Service ought not to be given full publicity in the national Press?

Mr. Stuart: If the confidence in the doctor or dentist is not retained he is excluded from the Service and the name is published, but I do not think that in other cases it would be right to do that

—
1948 (from 5th July)
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954 (to 30th September)


Doctors
…
…
—
—
4
3
15
19
3


Dentists
…
…
—
7
18
50
43
22
8

Housing Site, Glenmavis

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when Lanarkshire County Council may expect his decision on a site for houses in Glenmavis.

Mr. J. Stuart: The county council's proposals, which would involve the loss of valuable agricultural land, are still under consideration. I hope to be able to give them my views soon.

Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that all the information concerning this site has been with him since May of this year? Surely it would have been possible for the Minister to have reached a decision some time ago? Is he aware of the dreadful conditions of many of my constituents in this village and that they are feeling the Ministers in Scotland are not really doing their work on this matter?

Mr. Stuart: I cannot agree with the hon. Lady in saying that we are not trying because, as she knows, we have got on very rapidly with the housing programme. That does not mean that I wish to see any delay. I very much regret that a decision has been somewhat delayed in this case owing to conflicts of opinion locally.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Gosfield Hall, Essex

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Works if he will make a statement on the conversion of Gosfield Hall, Essex, into

because it would destroy confidence in the practitioner.

Following are the figures:
The years in which the two doctors were excluded from practice were 1950 and 1953, and the years in which the four dentists were excluded from practice were 1951 (two dentists), 1952 and 1953.
The occasions when sums were withheld from remuneration were distributed as follows:

a home for aged people; and what sum is to be paid for this purpose from public funds.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Nigel Birch): Gosfield Hall is an historic house which was acquired by the Essex County Council. The Wayfarer's Trust proposes to use the building as a nursing home for old people. The estimated cost of conversion is £30,000 and a public appeal for this money has been launched. No contribution towards the cost of conversion is being given from public funds.
In order to preserve the house, structural repairs are also necessary and, on the advice of the Historic Buildings Council for England, a grant of £17,000 has been offered on condition that the scheme to put the house into use is carried out.

Mr. Driberg: While congratulating the hon. Gentleman, if I may, on his elevation and on being able to announce in his first answer the preservation of an historic house which we all welcome, may I ask whether we can take it that he is satisfied that this house will not be disproportionately costly to adapt and maintain and that it will be suitable for the purpose?

Mr. Birch: The adaptation is not a matter for my Ministry, but for Essex County Council. What we are satisfied about is that the money we are allocating for the preservation of the house will be well spent.

Roman Remains, Loudon (Preservation)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Minister of Works whether he is aware that the well-preserved remains of a Roman temple of about A.D. 150 have been discovered near St. Paul's Cathedral; and what action he is taking to designate this temple an ancient monument so that it cannot be built over or removed.

Mr. Snow: asked the Minister of Works (1) if he will authorise archaeological excavation at the Walbrook site Temple of Mithras to continue until the north wall has been fully examined; and
(2) if he will appoint an independent committee of inquiry to examine the alternative technical methods of preserving the Mithras Temple at the Walbrook site, and to scrutinise the basis of the suggested £500,000 needed to modify the present building plan.

Mr. Birch: As has been announced, the owners of the site on which the Roman Temple was found generously offered to dismantle and re-erect it in a forecourt of the new building. They also provided full facilities for archaeological exploration. The House will wish to pay tribute to this public-spirited action.

Mr. Wyatt: Whilst clearly there is some satisfaction at the partial saving of this temple, is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable anxiety that there are large numbers of other bombed sites in the City of London which may contain equally important relics and antiquities, and will he give some assistance to archaeological endeavour to make sure that they are evacuated before the intended buildings go up?

Mr. Birch: I think this is a very good example of the way in which things can be made to work reasonably. I think there is another Question on this subject to come later.

Mr. Snow: While not accepting all the complacent remarks of the Minister, may I ask whether it is not a fact that before he or his predecessor authorised demolition the exterior of the north wall was excavated, whether he took independent opinion on the figure of £500,000 and whether it is a fact that his Department

received other advice which made nonsense of this vast figure—a large part of which was in the form of compensation?

Mr. Birch: I do not think the figure of £500,000 was exaggerated; I have looked into that. I am afraid I cannot answer the first part of the supplementary question without notice.

Llanthony Abbey, Monmouthshire

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Works what steps are being taken to prevent the further decay of the fabric of Llanthony Abbey, Monmouthshire, now scheduled for preservation by his Department.

Mr. Birch: Preservation work will begin when funds are available. The monument is not thought to be suffering much deterioration.

Ancient Lynchets

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Minister of Works what steps he is taking to protect slypes in Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire from destruction.

Mr. Birch: I think the hon. Member has in mind lynchets or ancient field systems, not slypes; some good examples of these are about to be considered for listing under the Ancient Monuments Acts.

Mr. Greenwood: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that slypes and celtic fields are the same thing and that with the increase of organisation of agriculture there is a growing danger of these fields being bulldozed out of existence? Will he say whether the owners of the fields have been notified of their existence?

Mr. Birch: I understand that a slype is a passage between a cathedral transept and a deanery. As I indicated in my answer, the question is being gone into and steps will be taken to preserve the best examples.

Mr. Greenwood: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is less well-informed than his predecessor, whom I put right in this matter?

Mr. Fenner Brockway: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, when looking into the question of celtic fields, that there are a large number of Celts in the county of Buckinghamshire?

London Builders' Conference (Restrictive Practices)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Works what action he proposes to take in view of the Report of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission on the Supply of Buildings in the Greater London Area.

Mr. Birch: Discussions have started with the parties concerned. The representatives of the London Builders' Conference have stated that the practices criticised by the Monopolies Commission are being suspended and that steps are being taken to provide for their abandonment. I hope to be able to make a fuller report to the House in due course.

Mr. Wade: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the publication of this Report provides still further evidence that the existing piecemeal procedure for dealing with monopolistic and restrictive practices in industry is far from satisfactory and much too slow?

Mr. Birch: That is a much larger question which, I think, should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

"Burghers of Calais"

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Works whether he is now able to give an approximate date for the removal of the "Burghers of Calais" from its present pedestal to the site nearby.

Mr. Birch: I regret that I cannot yet say when this work will be done.

Dr. Stross: Does that answer mean that the Minister accepts the view of his predecessor, that as soon as money is available he will make this significant piece of work as visible as possible to the public and that only lack of funds is now holding him up?

Mr. Birch: Certainly. I think the whole of the Victoria Gardens ought to be re-designed and that that should be part of the re-design.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-FRENCH CONVERSATIONS

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his conversations with the Prime Minister of France at Chartwell on 23rd August.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): It passed off most agreeably, and has been superseded by subsequent events.

Mr. Wyatt: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether his conversations on that day had anything to do with the fact that at the end of July he refused to pledge more than one division to Europe and now he has pledged four? Does he realise that if he had kept the promises he made at Strasbourg in August, 1952, two years ago, he would have saved Europe a great deal of trouble and the Foreign Secretary a great deal of travelling?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that is historically at all a correct picture. As a matter of fact things have been settled very much on the lines which I myself advocated at Strasbourg.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for the affairs of Cyprus to be transferred from the control of the Colonial Office to that of the Foreign Office.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. There is no lack of work at the Foreign Office at the present time.

Mr. Wyatt: Does the Prime Minister realise that the Labour Party is pledged to a policy on Cyprus quite opposite to that of his Government and that, although he obviously never intends to retire, he cannot stop the early return of a Labour Government which is going to change our policy towards Cyprus? Should he not make adjustments to that end now?

The Prime Minister: Cyprus was not under the Foreign Office during the Labour Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH DIVISION, KOREA

Mr. Steward: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement about the future of the British Commonwealth Division in Korea.

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government have already announced that, in agreement with the other Commonwealth countries concerned and the


United States of America, the Commonwealth land forces in Korea will be reduced by two-thirds. This reduction has already begun and should be completed early in 1955. The Commonwealth identity of the Commonwealth forces remaining in Korea will be retained.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL (RESIGNATION)

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the circumstances in which Lord Russell of Liverpool, Assistant Judge Advocate General, resigned his position after refusing to withdraw his book, "The Scourge of the Swastika," containing a factual account of activities under the Nazi regime.

The Prime Minister: I have carefully considered this case and I do not think that any special statement upon it is required from me. The Lord Chancellor took the view that publication by Lord Russell of a book which was clearly calculated to affect public opinion on a matter of political controversy was incompatible with his holding an office under the Courts Martial (Appeals) Act, 1951, and informed Lord Russell accordingly. In these circumstances Lord Russell chose to resign his appointment and publish the book, as he had every right to do. Had he not resigned his office the Lord Chancellor would have given him full opportunity of being heard before taking any action in the matter.

Mr. Davies: Is the Prime Minister aware that some British subjects, while not denouncing or ever having denounced the German people, feel that efforts by the Lord Chancellor to prevent the publication of a book which is historical fact—[Interruption.]—which is historical fact, and to which the Lord Chancellor, in 1951, apparently offered no objection if it were historical fact, are worried—people of all parties—at this gradual intrusion on the civil liberties of our people; and we consequently believe that had the House of Commons been sitting, this would not have happened to the Assistant Judge Advocate General?

The Prime Minister: The Lord Chancellor made no effort to prevent publication of the book—

Mr. Davies: But he punished the man—

The Prime Minister: —but only to prevent publication of it while Lord Russell held the office that he did.

Mr. Davies: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I wish to give notice that at the first opportunity I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT PROPOSALS (CONSIDERATION)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Prime Minister if he will now initiate talks between leading statesmen at the highest level on ways and means of halting the arms race and of reducing tension.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that recent official statements by Mr. Vishinsky on behalf of the Soviet Government improve the prospect of an encouraging advance towards a measure of multilateral disarmament; and what further steps Her Majesty's Government is taking, either by his direct approach to Mr. Malenkov or otherwise, to ensure more effective consideration of this question.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I made it clear in the debate on 5th April that we are prepared to take part in discussions at any level or to employ any other means which may best help us towards agreement on a safe and fair disarmament programme and on other great issues. There must, however, be general agreement upon the time and the method. It would in my view be improper to cut across the negotiations now proceeding in the United Nations, where the Assembly has recently been discussing the important proposals which we and our French friends presented last June together with the proposals recently presented by the Russians, to which the hon. Member for Leyton refers. It has now been suggested that there should be further private talks between the powers principally concerned, including, of course, the Soviet Union. Her Majesty's Government welcome this and will contribute their best endeavours to reaching an acceptable solution.

Mr. Swingler: Does not the Prime Minister recall that 18 months ago he suggested such a high level meeting could make such an important contribution to the relaxation of international tension? In view of the recent speeches of the Soviet Foreign Minister and the Soviet delegate to the United Nations, and in particular the Soviet delegate's changed attitude to these disarmament proposals, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that now is the appropriate time when he could make a contribution in such high level talks towards realising the more hopeful prospects raised at the Geneva Conference?

The Prime Minister: This Question refers specifically to disarmament proposals which are now being considered by the United Nations organisation, and the general question of a top level meeting was referred to in another Question which has not been asked today.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that in the existing circumstances some progress is being made in regard to this matter of disarmament, and that he is still prepared, if necessary, at some time to arrange the meeting to which this Question refers?

The Prime Minister: Yes, certainly. I have not altered in any way my point of view as expressed by the various statements which I have made to the House, but they have always been governed by due consideration for time and circumstances.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Prime Minister arrange that in the very important discussions which will take place in the United Nations the Government will be represented by a Minister who can speak with authority?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-RUSSIAN RELATIONS

Mr. Dodds: asked the Prime Minister what progress has been made in arranging a meeting with Mr. Malenkov.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the last part of my answer to Question No. 48.

[48. Mr. ARTHUR LEWIS: To ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, during the Summer Adjournment, a party of prominent politicians, including the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, paid a visit to Moscow; that the Soviet Government have invited a British Parliamentary delegation to visit the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and whether, in these circumstances, he will now propose a Big Three meeting in Moscow to discuss international affairs.]

Mr. Dodds: Not being a thought reader, I cannot attempt to understand what that might have been. Would the right hon. Gentleman read that last part and explain, out of courtesy, in response to a Question asked in the House, why the period now is not appropriate to such a meeting?

The Prime Minister: I had better read the answer which I was going to give to Question No. 48. Perhaps my hon. and right hon. Friends will look back to it on the Paper, otherwise they will not see the relevance of the answer.
Yes, Sir. I am certainly aware of these visits. They have in fact been widely reported in the Press.
In reply to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, I cannot do better than repeat the answer I gave to him when last we were together on 27th July.
May I repeat the answer which I respectfully served up to the hon. Member? This was the answer:
I have nothing to add to my previous statements on the subject of a top level conference. Her Majesty's Government intend to take all possible steps to decrease tension, whether through established bodies or by special methods."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 27th July, 1954; Vol. 531, c. 232.]

Mr. Dodds: Will the right hon. Gentleman now reply to Question No. 51, which does not refer to the Big Three but purely to the fact of whether, the Prime Minister having already seen President Eisenhower, he will now make an attempt to meet Mr. Malenkov? Is the Prime Minister not aware that there are many people in this country who are very sad that he, at Blackpool, should speak in such sneering terms about the visit of my right hon. Friend to Moscow, which has the approval of the vast majority of the British people?

The Prime Minister: I thought I spoke in very respectful terms—

Mr. Dodds: Answer Question No. 51.

The Prime Minister: —considering that I was addressing a political meeting.


I was endeavouring to stand between the feelings of my audience and members of the Opposition. But the situation has been altered by the negotiations which the Soviet Government set on foot recently and which are still under consideration and discussion. I have in no way receded from my expression of willingness to meet Mr. Malenkov at some agreed place and rendezvous if the right time and occasion is found.

Mr. Dodds: In view of the unsatisfactory answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD (FUTURE)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Prime Minister whether he has now decided when the Ministry of Food is to be closed down.

The Prime Minister: The announcement published yesterday will have made it clear that the Ministry of Food is not being closed down at the present time. This war-time Department in its greatly reduced form is now being combined with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries under a Minister whose responsibilities will cover those of both the previously separate offices. As already stated, this process is expected to take six months to complete, during which all aspects of the problem will be freely considered.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does not that answer mean that to all intents and purposes the Ministry of Food is to be continued, and will the right hon. Gentleman please say what considerations of public policy have led the Government to the conclusion that the Ministry of Food must be continued in some form or other?

The Prime Minister: I do not say that the Ministry of Food must be continued, but it is quite clear that there are some of the functions of the Ministry of Food whose permanent location in our system of Government must be carefully considered.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he gave consideration to the point that the Ministry of Food was essentially placed there to protect the consumer and has now been

joined with the Ministry of Agriculture? Is not the amalgamation rather like that of the young lady and the tiger?

The Prime Minister: I feel quite certain that my right hon. Friend who is taking charge of both Ministries will not act in such a one-sided manner as the right hon. Gentleman in his similitude seems to suggest.

Mr. Woodburn: The Ministry of Agriculture runs in England only; the Ministry of Food runs throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. What arrangement is the right hon. Gentleman making in this new set-up about the Ministry of Food as it at present exists in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: I need scarcely say that this was not overlooked. Very few things connected with Scotland are overlooked. When the amalgamation has been completed the main duties of the two offices will be combined in a single Ministerial post, and the responsibility now discharged by the Minister of Food in relation to Scotland will then be transferred to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Dr. Summerskill: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it has not always been easy to reconcile the interests of the farmers with those of the consumers, and therefore would it not have been more appropriate to amalgamate this Ministry, if it were necessary to amalgamate it at all, with another Department, say the Board of Trade?

The Prime Minister: I do not exclude full consideration of the future of any of the functions of the Ministry of Food which will have to continue. I certainly feel that the interests of the consumers require most careful consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL TERRITORIES (SELF-DETERMINATION)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Prime Minister if he will publish a list of those territories within the British Commonwealth and Empire which are considered by Her Majesty's Government, for strategic or other reasons, to be ineligible for self-determination.

The Prime Minister: Each exceptional case should be decided on its own individual merits and in accordance with the circumstances prevailing at the time.

Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how shocked and disappointed people were in Cyprus, for instance—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—who had relied on the assurances of the Western Powers that all peoples were entitled ultimately to self-determination, when the Minister of State said on 28th July that Cyprus was one of those territories which could never enjoy full self-Government and self-determination? Does his negative answer today mean that there are more shocks in store for various colonial territories?

The Prime Minister: The word "never" is one which in politics can only be used in its general relativity to the subject.

Mr. Grimond: May we take it that the general relativity of this subject does mean that the question of self-determination for Cyprus may be reconsidered at some future date?

The Prime Minister: I do not think I should like in reply to a supplementary question to say anything upon a subject of this kind. My remark was of a general character and the word "never" has no special application in this case.

Mr. Brooman-White: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the people of Cyprus are as yet fully aware of the effect on their future material welfare which may be produced by any change in present sovereignty?

The Prime Minister: It is a great many years since I visited Cyprus, and exactly the same feelings were alive there then as are alive now. But they have been expressed with a considerable degree of restraint and good feeling, and the prosperity of the community has enormously increased and will bear most careful examination both by those who belong to it and by the outer world.

Mr. Driberg: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when he did visit Cyprus as Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in, I think, 1909, he warmly encouraged the Enosis campaign? Can

we take it that his answer today on the question of the word "never" does imply a distinct repudiation of the use of that word on 28th July by the Minister of State?

The Prime Minister: I do not think it was the considered intention of my right hon. Friend the late Secretary of State to use the word "never" In fact, he was not aware that it had come in his impromptu statement until after he saw it. Therefore, the word "never" need not he brought in to complicate our affairs. But wiping out the word "never" does not mean that you substitute any other date.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE MEN, GERMANY (LEAVE)

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that some National Service men who had served six months with the British Army of the Rhine were due for their privilege leave on 7th September; that this leave was cancelled because of manuœvres which were due to begin on 15th September; that some National Service men have not had their leave after eight months' service with the British Army of the Rhine; and if he will arrange that, in future, privilege leave due to National Service men shall be granted at the date it becomes due.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Fitzroy Maclean): This leave is granted as a privilege when military duties permit, and as a general rule commanding officers try to get their men off on leave as soon as they become eligible. Manœuvres are, however, an essential part of military training, and it was reasonable to defer leave at that time. My right hon. Friend does not wish to interfere with the discretion of the local commander in this matter.

Mr. Janner: Will the Minister take this excellent opportunity to do something really worth while as one of his first duties, and that is to ensure that, where possible, National Service men shall not be disappointed about the times of their leaves especially as their parents make special arrangements for them to come home at these times. Will the hon. Gentleman particularly inquire into those cases


where leaves have been deferred two or three times and families have been unable to alter the arrangements they have made?

Mr. Maclean: Every effort is made to get National Service men in Germany off on leave as soon as the six months are completed, even though they have no right to leave immediately the time is up. If the hon. Member will let me have details of special cases they will certainly be considered on their merits.

LONDON DOCKS (STRIKES)

Sir W. Monckton: With permission, I will make a statement in answer to Question No. 20.
The strike in the London Docks began on 28th September when a dispute over the sorting of a cargo of meat resulted in an unofficial stoppage of work. On 1st October, the National Amalgamated Stevedores' and Dockers' Union decided to declare an official strike on and from 4th October. The members of this union were subsequently joined by large numbers of men belonging to the Transport and General Workers' Union, who ceased work in sympathy, although their action is entirely unofficial and against the advice of their union. On 17th October, the Watermen, Lightermen, Tugmen and Bargemen's Union called out their members and the work of the Port of London is now practically at a standstill. The stoppage has since spread to Birkenhead and Liverpool, though at the latter port a substantial number of men still remain at work.
The stoppage by the National Amalgamated Stevedores' and Dockers' Union on 4th October was to enforce their demand that, besides the question of meat sorting, discussions with the employers should take place on all outstanding matters. Discussions on these matters had not taken place because of a ban on overtime which the National Amalgamated Stevedores and Dockers had imposed in January last in support of their contention that the Dock Labour Scheme does not place a registered port worker under any obligation to work overtime. Since, as I shall explain later, I have set up a court of inquiry, I do not want to attempt to define this, which is the central issue, too precisely.
Efforts were made early in the year by officers of my Department and by myself to assist in reaching a settlement of this question but these were not successful. When I saw the employers' and the unions' representatives last week, it was clear that the overtime question was still the real issue, but it was equally clear that no progress could be made by negotiation at this stage. Having in mind that I might therefore find it necessary to appoint a court of inquiry, I emphasised to the National Amalgamated Stevedores and Dockers the gravity of the situation which the stoppage had caused, and asked them if, in the event of my setting up a court of inquiry, they would call off the strike. I pointed out that this could be done whether or not the overtime ban was maintained. I felt that this suggestion could have been accepted by them in the national interest, without in any way prejudicing their case before the court of inquiry, but the union refused to take this course.
I have now set up a court of inquiry into the causes and circumstances of the dispute. The court has already held a preliminary meeting and will be sitting tomorrow. I hope that the National Amalgamated Stevedores and Dockers will even now reconsider their decision and call off the strike in the knowledge that they can do so without in the least damaging the case which they wish to present to the court.
The stoppage in the London Docks is having a serious effect on the country's export trade, it is endangering food supplies, and it threatens to cause unemployment in other industries. If the stoppage continues, the effects will become progressively more serious and the economic life of the nation will be endangered. The Government are, of course, watching the situation closely and will take any steps which may become necessary to protect the national interest.

Mr. Robens: I am sure that the House will be grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the clear statement he has just made. It would be a mistake if, by reason of question and answer in this House at this stage, we were to exacerbate relations in a very difficult and delicate situation. May I therefore content myself with expressing the hope that the dockers, having made


their demonstration, will resume normal work while the court of inquiry sits, which would be without prejudice to the case which they may have?

Mr. McCorquodale: In order to get the matter quite clear, may I ask the Minister whether I should be right in assuming that the stevedores union could have gone back to work at any time, maintaining their ban on overtime, and leaving the whole question of overtime to be discussed by the court of inquiry?

Sir W. Monckton: That was the position I sought to make plain to them, as a suggestion, namely, that if the real issue was, as everybody agreed, centred on the operation of overtime and the right to call for it and so forth, it would save the nation a lot and avoid everybody suffering a lot if they would go back and not do overtime and thus not prejudice their own position before the court. I still hope that they will listen to that appeal.

Sir R. Acland: Will the Minister consider taking similar or comparable action in relation to the other strike in the dockland area, namely, the strike of ship-repair workers, because there appear to be issues there which will not yield unless the Minister takes some initiative and goes into the matter thoroughly and profoundly?

Sir W. Monckton: The ship-repairers strike is of a very different character and I am very anxious at any stage to help all I can. However, I am sure that the House would not wish me to state all the circumstances which enable me to judge if and when that time comes, though I would say that I do not think that at this moment the setting up of a court of inquiry would help.

WESTERN EUROPEAN DEFENCE (LONDON CONFERENCE AGREEMENTS)

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any statement to make on the recent London conference.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): Yes, Sir. In December, 1950, at Brussels the Western Powers agreed that Germany

must be invited to make a contribution to Western defence. In May, 1952, the Western Powers signed at Bonn and in Paris treaties to restore to Western Germany a wide measure of her sovereignty, and to set up the European Defence Community. In the interval these treaties have been ratified by a number of countries. But at the end of August the European Defence Community was rejected by the French Assembly.
In these circumstances it became necessary to find an alternative solution, and to do so quickly. Unless we could do this, the whole structure of Western cooperation and defence must disintegrate and collapse. The entry of Germany into the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation as an alternative to the European Defence Community has for long past had many advocates. But it was also clear that by itself alone this event could not provide an answer which the Parliaments of Western Europe would endorse. Something more was needed. The European idea must find expression if not in the European Defence Community, then in some simpler form where the presence of the United Kingdom might make up for some of the super-structure. In our search for means to this end, it seemed that the Brussels Treaty, re-shaped and enlarged, could furnish the instrument we needed.
When, therefore, it was not possible to hold the Nine-Power Conference in London early in September, I decided with the approval of my colleagues to visit the capitals of Western Europe and to canvass there what were in effect three sets of ideas—the expansion and adaptation of the Brussels Treaty, the entry of Germany into N.A.T.O., and the amendment of the Bonn Treaties so as to end the Occupation Régime in Germany, as had been first proposed in 1952. I was much encouraged to find on this flying visit that the Governments of the European countries directly concerned welcomed these ideas. Most of them endorsed them wholeheartedly. From conversations in London with Mr. Foster Dulles and from frequent interchanges by cable with Mr. Lester Pearson, we found that the United States and Canadian Governments also agreed with us on the practicability of these proopsals. Her Majesty's Government in the United


Kingdom therefore felt justified in convening the London Conference. I think that we can reasonably claim that our initiative and the contribution which we were able to make during the conference played an essential part in the agreements which were reached.
The decisions of the conference can be broadly grouped under three main headings. It was agreed that the Occupation Régime in the German Federal Republic should be ended as soon as possible. This régime is now an anachronism and I am sure that if it had been legally possible the three Occupying Powers would have been glad to bring it to an end immediately. The position is, however, extremely complicated, since the three Powers will exercise in full agreement with the German Government certain continuing rights and responsibilities for which adequate provision must be made. We cannot leave a legal vacuum. All these matters have been studied in detail by our representatives in Bonn, and, when I meet M. Mendès-France, Mr. Dulles and Dr. Adenauer in Paris tomorrow, we shall have before us the draft Protocol and other instruments required to bring up to date and, where necessary, amend the Bonn Conventions of May. 1952. Meanwhile the three Occupying Powers have issued a declaration of intent which forms part of the Final Act of the London Conference, and which will govern our conduct meanwhile.
The second main decision of the London Conference was that the German Federal Republic and Italy should join the Brussels Treaty. At the same time the Brussels Treaty will be given important additional functions which will, in the words of the Final Act: … make it a more effective focus of European integration.
It is certainly not the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the Brussels Treaty should supplant N.A.T.O. or duplicate the work which N.A.T.O. is doing on the organisation of Western defence. It is essential that the two bodies should work closely together and that they should in fact be complementary to each other. The emphasis in N.A.T.O. has always been to encourage the maximum contributions to the joint defence effort. The revised Brussels Treaty will lay down maximum levels for the forces of the member States on

the mainland of Europe and will institute a system of control under the Armaments Agency to ensure that the agreed levels of forces and stocks of the more essential weapons are not being exceeded. Each country will thus bear its share of the common defence burden but will not be able to build up forces or to accumulate stocks of weapons which would enable it to act independently of or perhaps contrary to the defensive strategy of N.A.T.O.
I would invite the particular attention of the House to the German Chancellor's undertaking, set out in the White Paper, that certain weapons, including atomic weapons, will not be manufactured in the Federal Republic. This voluntary renunciation was made at a difficult moment during the Conference. Its importance was at once recognised and it enabled the Conference to resolve a problem for which no other acceptable solution was in sight.
The third main group of decisions concerned N.A.T.O. Before the Conference met it had been agreed by all of us that we must assure the full association of the Federal Republic with the West. It was also agreed that a German contribution to Western defence must be made through N.A.T.O. It was therefore accepted that as part of the system we were constructing Germany should become a member of N.A.T.O. The Conference agreed to recommend this to the North Atlantic Council and at the same time to recommend that N.A.T.O. machinery should be strengthened by increasing the authority of the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe over all the N.A.T.O. forces under his command. This is an important provision.
I now come to the assurances of continued participation and support given by Mr. Dulles and Mr. Pearson. We all recognised at the London Conference that only a united effort by the free countries of Western Europe could solve what was primarily a European problem. Nonetheless, we value most highly the understanding and encouragement which we received throughout from Mr. Dulles and Mr. Pearson. The assurances which they gave during the Conference, and their approval of the Final Act, were essential to the success of our work.
If I have left the undertaking of Her Majesty's Government until the end of my survey, it is not because I under-rate its importance. As I said at the time,


this was a formidable step for us to take. But I am convinced that Her Majesty's Government were right to take it and that if we had not done so the whole Conference would have failed, with disastrous consequences for us all. Our action in giving this undertaking has been generally welcomed in this country, in the Commonwealth, and in the free world as a whole.
These were the main decisions reached in London. Expert groups in Paris, London and Bonn have since been working on the detailed arrangements which will give effect to these agreements. I am glad to say that very good progress has been made. When the Ministers meet in Paris tomorrow and on the following days we hope to he able to complete our work quickly. If these hopes are realised, we shall have done all that lies in our power to give effect to the general settlements worked out at the London Conference. The results will then be submitted to the Parliaments concerned for their approval. I understand that the intention is that the French Assembly should reach its decision before the end of the year. This is most encouraging, and I have no doubt that arrangements will also be made for this House to have a convenient opportunity to pronounce upon these agreements.
A number of problems still remain, chief of which is that of the Saar, which is being discussed by Dr. Adenauer and M. Mendès-France in Paris today. But the rapid progress so far made encourages Her Majesty's Government to hope that none of the remaining difficulties will be allowed to delay this great consolidation of Western Europe, including Germany. These plans, now so nearly completed, are aimed at no other Power. On the contrary, once the unity of the free nations of the West has been achieved, we shall be the better able to move on towards even wider projects, including, let us hope, a relaxation of tension between East and West. Much has been said and written in these last months of the importance of a German military contribution to the West, and I should be the last to under-estimate this. But for my part, if our hopes in these agreements can finally be realised, my greatest measure of satisfaction will lie in the fact that Germany can find her place in joint membership with countries she has in the past invaded. In no other way can we

hope to rebuild our shattered Europe. And so at long last out of the sufferings of the past may come peace for the future.

Mr. Attlee: The House will have listened with great interest to this very important statement, and it is quite clear that in due course the House will want to debate the whole matter very fully in all its implications. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is going immediately to the Continent for further meetings, and I feel that it would be unsatisfactory to have a debate now or to pursue this matter with many questions. I prefer to wait until he can bring us something more definite.

Mr. Gaitskell: While I fully agree with my right hon. Friend that we do not wish to pursue this matter in detail, there is one question of fact which is of great importance but to which the Foreign Secretary did not refer in his statement; I mean the question of the cost of this important decision. Could the Foreign Secretary give us some idea by how much the defence burden of this country is to be increased, if at all, as a result, firstly, of the restoration of sovereignty to Germany and therefore, presumably, the end of the payment of a contribution towards occupation costs by Germany; and secondly, the effect in terms of expenditure of the offer which the right hon. Gentleman has made that we should maintain four divisions and a tactical air force on the Continent?

Mr. Eden: As regards the first part of the question, the arrangements will be exactly the same, or basically the same, as they would have been under E.D.C. The arrangements under E.D.C., which were endorsed at the time by the House, allowed for an interim period in which expenditure would continue to be borne by the German Government, and a further period of approximately one year during which part of the expenses would be borne by the German Federal Government. The position under the present arrangement in all respects will be exactly the same as it would have been under E.D.C., except that, owing to the fact that E.D.C. has not been ratified, there has been a delay, and there is to that extent less burden on the British taxpayer than there would have been.
As regards the further long-term situation, the right hon. Gentleman is aware


that that is a matter which certainly can be debated when we have the full text of the agreement. As the right hon. Gentleman will remember, under E.D.C. there were long-term arrangements by Her Majesty's Government about the level of the forces which will be maintained in Europe, and that engagement has to be compared with the engagement made under the new arrangement.

Sir W. Smithers: Does my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary realise how deep is the debt of gratitude which the whole free world owes to him for his inspiring and courageous leadership?

Mr. Bevan: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that his last statement still leaves our financial commitments rather obscure, and also that, before the House can intelligently debate the implications of the tentative agreement entered into, the Government should provide us with a White Paper setting out quite clearly what the additional financial commitments will be, what bearing they might have on the balance of payments between Britain and other Western European nations, and what effect these new commitments may have, not only on the limitation of sovereignty, which might be bearable, but also upon the length of the period of National Service in this country? Otherwise, until we have all that information, it will not be possible for the House to consider what in fact are the consequences to which the right hon. Gentleman has committed us.

Mr. Eden: Of course, as far as German sovereignty is concerned, as the right hon. Gentleman himself will be aware, the first step towards German sovereignty was taken as long ago as 1950, and the agreements were all signed in 1952. [Interruption.] This is very important financially, and I thought the right hon. Gentleman was asking a financial question. We shall have to see what the effect of the restoration of German sovereignty will be on our position. The arrangement will be exactly the same as it would have been under E.D.C. What we have to make sure about is what will be the cost of the undertaking which I have given against the cost of the undertakings which were previously given in respect

of E.D.C., and that is a matter which certainly can be measured and debated, and should be measured and debated, in this House. I hope, at the same time, that the House will not forget to bear in mind that one of the objects of the undertaking, which I think has been realised, is that by making a contribution of our troops to Europe now we shall prevent a war instead of fighting one.

Mr. Bevan: It is generally agreed that this is not the appropriate moment to debate this matter, and therefore I think the right hon. Gentleman might have refrained from making the last statement; otherwise, we would be perfectly entitled to make statements of our own in reply. What I want to know is whether the right hon. Gentleman will provide a White Paper before the debate in order that we may have a proper opportunity of examining textually the consequences for the nation of the commitment we have entered into.

Mr. Eden: If the right hon. Gentleman had studied this White Paper, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition clearly has done, he would have understood that there is a financial reservation which we have made. Therefore, the exercise which I am being asked to carry out is to balance the engagement which we have now entered into against the engagement which would have been entered into under E.D.C., which arrangement was approved by this House. I will certainly see whether there is any further information which I can furnish, and if so, I will readily do so.

Mr. Speaker: There seems to be general agreement that we should not debate this matter now.

Mr. Harold Davies: While we do not want to debate this matter now, may I be permitted to ask the Foreign Secretary one question on the interpretation of the statement in the White Paper, which many of us have carefully read. I should like to ask one important question about—

Mr. Speaker: That is not now in order.

SUEZ CANAL ZONE BASE (AGREEMENT)

Mr. Clement Davies: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the negotiations with the Egyptian Government on the Suez Canal Zone Base.

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. I understand that the United Kingdom Delegation, led by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, has reached agreement on all points with the Egyptian Government. It is hoped that the new agreement will be signed in Cairo this evening. The full texts will be laid before the House as a White Paper at the earliest possible moment.
I am sure the House will welcome the conclusion of this difficult and complex negotiation. Her Majesty's Government believe that it will open a new chapter in our relations with Egypt and that it will serve the cause of peace and stability throughout the Middle East.

Mr. Davies: While agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman's expression of the hope that this agreement will serve the cause of peace, may I ask him whether, in these new circumstances, the position of Israel has been considered and borne in mind, and whether it will be borne in mind as well as, indeed, the position generally in the Middle East?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. I think I remarked before that I hoped that the result of the agreement will be that we shall be able to move forward to a general relaxation of tension throughout the Middle East. I do not believe that we could have made any progress as long as the whole situation was complicated by the Egyptian question. Now there is an agreement, we will do our best.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Does the Foreign Secretary mean by his last statement but one that he and the Government have the full and unqualified approval of the whole of the Government supporters on the benches behind him?

Mr. Eden: Oh, yes; we are quite happy about that.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett, C.B., D.S.O., for Croydon, East.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order read for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee).

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 6, page 9, line 7; Clause 18, page 22, line 21; Clause 23, page 26, line 31; and the new Clause (Associated companies), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Secretary Stuart.—[The Lord Advocate.]

4.1 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Before we agree to this Motion, may I offer our congratulations to the Secretary of State for Scotland that he is able to be with us today? Scotland learned with some alarm that there was a prospect of losing him, and was a bit apprehensive when looking at the possible alternatives. Naturally we were very much relieved when steps were taken to issue a very prompt denial. We realise now that the right hon. Gentleman was not with the Prime Minister with a view to recommending a successor but, presumably, with a view to giving the Prime Minister assistance in other directions. We hope that any disability or embarrassment that arose from the rumour to which I have referred will soon disappear and that the right hon. Gentleman will return with his usual vigour as Leader of the Conservatives in Scotland.
Perhaps he will inform us whether the Amendments referred to in the Motion, which has been moved by the Lord Advocate and which we do not profess to follow with the clarity customary with a normal Bill before the House, include any provision such as was announced by the Minister of Housing and Local Government to deal with the question, which has been mentioned in the Press, of people who have, so to speak, been swindled when they bought land. Does he intend, as seems to have been forecast, to introduce legislation to compel local authorities to make up for the robbery of private individuals by unscrupulous land dealers?

Mr. Speaker: The only Question before the House is whether the Bill is

to be recommitted in respect of these Amendments. If the House agrees to the Motion, perhaps we could discuss at the proper time the interesting topic which the right hon. Gentleman is raising.

Mr. Woodburn: We do not profess to understand these Amendments very well, and I wanted to know whether they include an Amendment which has been announced by the Minister of Housing and Local Government containing some provision to compel local authorities to recompense people who have been robbed by enterprising private enterprisers.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind opening remarks. We will take appropriate action on the same lines as have been announced in connection with the English Bill now in another place. This matter is not included in the present set of Amendments.

Mr. William Ross: We have had no indication why it is necessary to ask for a recommittal of the Bill. When the Bill was in Committee we had quite a little trouble, part of which was due to the fact that the Government were determined to get it through Committee within a certain time. Is the fact that we have now to resume our Committee stage in the whole House due to wrong tactics by the Government in not allowing sufficient time to get proper consideration of the Bill in the Scottish Standing Committee? There is a tremendous number of Amendments on the Notice Paper. My right hon. Friend voiced his feelings about the continued presence of the right hon. Gentleman as Secretary of State for Scotland. It may well be that the Secretary of State has been so busy writing Amendments that he has not got down to writing his letter of resignation.

Mr. Hector Hughes: This Motion comes far too late in the history of the Bill. The Government's planning and programme with regard to the Bill were inadequate from the very start. Consideration of the Bill was cut short unduly in the Standing Committee. The Government's procedure has been discriminating against Scotland, as between the Scottish Bill and the comparable English Bill. Too little time was allotted to our Bill, and so discussion was cramped and scamped, and ultimately


even the time which was allowed in the Standing Committee was cut away, with injury to the Bill and to the people who are concerned with it.
I am dealing with the Motion before the House, Mr. Speaker. I see your anxiety, but I intend to keep in order. The Town and Country Planning Bill for England, which is comparable to the one that we are now discussing, is smaller, and yet more time was allowed for it in the Standing Committee; 15 days were allowed in Committee for the English Bill and only six days for our Bill. The Motion now before the House is a belated recognition of the misconduct of the Government in leaving too little time for the discussion of the Bill. When taken in conjunction with what happened in the Committee, the Motion may predispose foolish people outside this House towards other forms of government, perhaps totalitarian or Communistic, because these things bring our own form of government into ridicule and contempt.
Why did the Government do this? On 17th May, which was the fifth sitting day of the Scottish Grand Committee, the Secretary of State announced the truncation of the sitting. That was the condition precedent to the Motion now before the House. I venture to say that in parenthesis, in order to make clear that I am in order. The truncation of that sitting induced the Scottish Labour group—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot make out whether or not the hon. and learned Gentleman is arguing against the Motion to recommit the Bill. He seems to be going very much wider and dealing with a lot of history relating to the Committee stage. He must argue, if he feels so inclined, against or for the recommittal of the Bill in respect of these particular Amendments.

Mr. Hughes: I am arguing against the Motion, and for that purpose I am submitting that the Motion is belated. It is a wrong Motion. There should have been more time for discussion in the Standing Committee. When the Secretary of State made his announcement truncating the time for discussion in the Scottish Grand Committee, he thereby induced the Scottish Labour group, with justification, to put upon the Order Paper a Motion, which of course I cannot move now, but

which I think, subject to your guidance, Mr. Speaker, I should be in order in mentioning.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman was kind enough to say that he would submit to my judgment in the matter. I regret to inform him that my judgment is against him. That Motion is not before us. I understood that there was an Amendment to be moved.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. L. Clyde): There is an Amendment to the Motion, Mr. Speaker, of which notice has been given. I beg to move, at the end, to add:
and in respect of the Amendment to Clause 43, page 45, line 14, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Secretary Stuart.

Mr. James H. Hoy: This latest announcement. Mr. Speaker, is one of the reasons we find it extremely difficult to accept the Motion. Until you, Sir, announced the fact, we had no idea that there was an Amendment to the Motion. It would seem to be a little disrespectful to the House that the first intimation which we receive of a further Amendment is when you, Sir, the Speaker of the House, intimates that it is about to be moved. That, to my mind, is not treating the House with very great respect.
There is a great deal in what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), but the truth of the matter is that these four Amendments for which the Government seek to recommit the Bill are due to the fact that there is to be an added charge. That added charge makes it imperative for this recommittal Motion to be moved.
Added charges have come about only as a result of the discussions on the comparable English Measure in Committee upstairs; and because, during the passage of the English Bill, certain Amendments were made bringing about added charges, the Scottish Office have brought forward these Amendments in order to bring the Scottish legislation into line with the amended English legislation. That is the simple reason for so doing, and one has to consider whether or not it is a good enough reason for agreeing to the Motion. I certainly must make a protest, which I am sure is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that at this very late stage we should be given notice


of a further Government Amendment of which we have had no previous intimation.

Mr. Woodburn: I suggest that the best thing the Government could do would be to take the Bill back until they have finally made up their minds concerning the form in which they want to bring it before the House. It is clear from what has been happening, and from what is promised in other places, that there are going to be continual Amendments, not only here but also in another place. It would really be much more satisfactory if all these difficulties and new situations were fully foreseen, and if a Bill were drafted which covered the problems in an effective way.
This patchwork process is bound to give rise to further difficulties, and that is why I suggest that the Government should consider very carefully whether they ought not to reconsider the whole Bill with a view to putting it in proper form before bringing it forward for discussion. I received a note a few minutes ago intimating that this Amendment was to be moved. I quite understand why the Government wish to move it, but there may be a number of other Amendments of the same character coming along, and it really is an unsatisfactory way of dealing with a very complicated piece of legislation.

Mr. J. Stuart: I apologise to the House for the fact that we have to amend this Motion. It turns out that we have to recommit in respect of another Amendment, but the House has had plenty of notice of that Amendment. If hon. Members will refer to the Notice Paper, they will see there the Amendment, which is in Clause 43, page 45, line 14, at end, insert:
and paragraph 1 of the Fourth Schedule to the principal Act shall have effect subject to a proviso that the value of any interest, as calculated for the purpose of assessing compensation payable under section twenty of that Act, may be a minus quantity.
It was impossible to get the Amendment in its proper place on the Order Paper while the House was not sitting.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask the Secretary of State to give

still further consideration to the suggestion of withdrawing the Bill at this stage? The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) has put the position very clearly, but there is a further point which I think should be considered. This Bill, with its enormously complicated provisions, greatly taxed the Lord Advocate during the Committee stage. Those provisions are now rendered still more complicated by the present procedure. I suggest that, in order to save the Lord Advocate from the persistent strain to which he was subjected in Committee, regarding which we had a great deal of sympathy for him, this matter should be delayed until the right hon. and learned Gentleman is reinforced by the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who could help him to explain these complicated Clauses to the House in a satisfactory way.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): That may very well be so, but at the moment we are dealing only with the recommittal Motion.

Mr. David J. Pryde: I think that the Secretary of State for Scotland is a man of considerable courage to come forward at this time and to present all these Amendments, because the situation clearly shows the confusion which has overtaken the Government in their attempt to push this Bill through the House. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), because the treatment which the Government have accorded to hon. Members on this side of the House regarding this Bill borders on the cavalier. There is no doubt that these Amendments completely alter the structure of the Bill, and I ask the Government to consider very seriously the situation in Scotland in regard to the sale and the resale of land by means of this Measure. The Government have trafficked in transport and in steel, and they are now proposing to fling the whole Scottish land system to the wolves. In all seriousness, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Bill and seriously to reconsider it.

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Clause 6.—(PAYMENT WHERE INTEREST IN LAND COMPULSORILY ACQUIRED OR SOLD AT PRICE WHOLLY OR PARTLY EXCLUDING DEVELOPMENT VALUE (CASE B).)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 9, line 7, at the end, to insert:
(7) Where two or more persons are jointly entitled to a claim holding, then, for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not those persons are entitled to a payment in respect of the holding by virtue of this section, any act or event by virtue of which the interest of any one or more of those persons in any of the area of the claim holding passed to any other one or more of those persons shall be deemed not to have occurred.
(8) The provisions of this and the next following section shall apply in relation to any interest in land vested in the British Transport Commission by subsection (2) of section forty-five of the Transport Act, 1947 (which relates to the acquisition of road haulage undertakings by the Commission), as if that vesting were a compulsory acquisition of that interest and as if the notice of acquisition served under Part III of that Act by virtue of which the interest was so vested were a notice to treat.
The object of the Amendment is to add two new subsections to Clause 6. There are two distinct points involved, one in each of the two new subsections. The proposed subsection (7) has been added here in order to remedy an injustice that otherwise might have taken place. In order to make its object and effect clear, perhaps I might describe the present position and then try to describe the effect of the Amendment.
To entitle anyone to a Case B payment under the Bill at present the claimant must, at the time of the acquisition or sale of the interest in the land, be both the holder of the claim holding and also the owner of the interest in the land, and if before the land is acquired or sold compulsorily the two people—the holder of the claim and the owner of the interest in the land—should become separate, the effect would be to deprive the person entitled to the claim of the benefit of that claim. The proposed new subsection provides that any transaction in the land among joint holders of the claim holding is to be annulled. Joint holders will thus be entitled to claim as though jointly holding the land.
Subsection (8) has been added to cover the case of transfers of land and property

under the Transport Act, 1947, from private hauliers to the British Transport Commission. The trouble is that under that Act transfers of land are not carried out by compulsory acquisition. The effect of this Amendment will be to treat, for the purpose of the Clause, as compulsory acquisition transfers of land under the Transport Act, 1947, and thus bring within the scope of Case B such cases if the price paid is below the existing use value plus claim.

Mr. Douglas Johnston: should like the learned Lord Advocate to confirm that this Clause has an extremely limited application and that such application is limited to the following circumstances: first, that on the appointed day there is a joint holding of land; second, that the claim under Part VI of the Act is established; third, that after the Part VI claim is established the joint holding in the land is split while the joint holding, in the claim remains in the original holders of the land.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that it is in these circumstances alone that this deeming provision applies—that, in spite of the fact that there has been a transaction or event, that transaction or event shall be deemed not to have occurred? I think that I am right in that, but I confess that this Bill is so obscure in so many of its provisions that I am not certain of it, and accordingly I should be obliged if the Lord Advocate would confirm or contradict my belief.
In passing, too, I think that this provision for one single set of circumstances is simply an example of the errors of draftsmanship in the whole of the Bill, in that the Bill does not proceed to enunciate general principles and then go on to give exceptions to and extensions of the general principles. The Bill does nothing but provide for a succession of special cases which, I venture to say, will first of all be found not to be comprehensive, and secondly will be impossible to apply because of their complexity.
May I further ask whether this proposed subsection (8) imposes any greater obligation on the British Transport Commission than is provided for by the Transport Act, 1947?

Mr. Hector Hughes: I must confess that I find the argument presented by the learned Lord Advocate singularly


unconvincing. In one thing, however, I agree with him. Each of these two proposed subsections deals with a separate and distinct point, but the matter at which this House has every right to cavil is that not only does each deal with a separate and distinct thing but with things which are quite separate and distinct from the Clause itself. They bear no relation to the Clause and, if Amendments of this character are to be inserted in the Bill, then in my submission this is not the place to do it.
The Government are making a very serious mistake in proposing this Amendment to Clause 6. The Amendment is irrelevant to Clause 6 and is outside its purpose. It was not mentioned in Committee and, until we saw it on the Order Paper for today, no notice of it was given. As I have said, the two proposed subsections deal with two things which are foreign to the Clause. They do not touch upon any words in the Clause, and if these two things are to be put in the Bill at all, they should be put in another place.
Unlike the other 68 Clauses and the 10 Schedules at the end of this Bill, this Clause was debated in the Scottish Grand Committee. No point was then made on the lines of this Amendment and no undertaking or direction or declaration was either asked for or given. Clause 6, to which it is now, at this late hour, sought to add, deals with cases of:
Payments where interest in land compulsorily acquired or sold of a price wholly or partly excluding development value (Case B).
It is clear, therefore, that Clause 6 bears no relation to either of the matters contained in the proposed subsections.
As the Lord Advocate has very fairly said, subsection (7) deals with joint owners of a claim holding, while subsection (8) deals with land vested in the British Transport Commission by Section 45 (2) of the Transport Act, 1947. It is right that the House should be told that when Clause 6 was debated in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) proposed two Amendments. He made clear and persuasive speeches upon those Amendments both of which were discussed by a number of hon. Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), the

hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) all spoke on those Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is now sitting opposite, replied for the Government.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I hope that the hon. and learned Member is going to relate that argument to this Amendment.

Mr. Hughes: I am pointing out—and I have already said clearly—that when this Clause was before the Scottish Grand Committee, two Amendments were proposed and discussed but no hint was then given of the subjects included in these two proposed subsections.
4.30 p.m.
Let us examine these two subsections on their merits. I regret that the Lord Advocate did not do so. The Lord Advocate contended himself with saying that they were, as a lawyer would say, dehors the subject of the Clause itself. Clause 6 which is sought to be amended—I am keeping myself strictly in order, Sir Rhys—is one of a set of Clauses, Clauses 4 to 12, all dealing with unitary owners of claims. Clauses 4 and 5 deal with Case A payments. Clauses 6 and 7 deal with Case B payments. Clause 8 deals with Case C payments, Clause 9 deals with Case D payments and Clause 10 deals with payments under Cases A, B or C to a person deriving title to a claim holding from the original claim holder.
The point that I am making is that this Amendment should not be accepted, either because it is irrelevant to the Clause or because it is sought to put it in the wrong place in the Bill. I mention that in parenthesis, Sir Rhys, because I see that you are rather restive, and I am doing my best to keep in order.
Clause 11 deals with payments in cases analogous to Case B, and Clause 12 deals with residual payments in cases analogous to Cases A and B. That set of Clauses, of which Clause 6 is one, constitute a scheme within the Bill—a comprehensive and complicated scheme, it is true—dealing with the rights and liabilities of any person who is called in the Bill "the holder of a claim holding"


in any of the sets of circumstances depicted in Clauses 4 to 12.
I have mentioned the environment of these two subsections and of Clause 6 in order to show that the Government are seeking to put into the Clause something that is unnecessary, out of place and foreign to it. In fact, it would extend the scope of the Clause and the purview of the Bill. It would extend the rights of property owners within the meaning of the essential phrase, "the holder of a claim holding." What is such a holder? It is necessary to know what such a holder is, in order to decide whether these subsections are relevant or irrelevant and whether the Committee should accept them.
Such a holder is defined in Clause 3 (7) as follows:
(7) In this Act the expression "the holder," in relation to a claim holding (being either the whole or part of the benefit of an established claim), means the person for the time being entitled to the holding.
That is sense. It is also clear. It also makes unnecessary and undesirable the Amendment which has been moved. It is admitted on all hands, and has been admitted all through the proceedings on this Bill, that it is complicated enough. Provisions such as these would make it still more complicated.
Therefore, this Bill, which is already longer than the English Bill which had 15 sitting days in Committee while this has had only six, ought not to be made longer still and more complicated, and therefore more difficult to be administered by the unfortunate people who will have to administer it. Such complications may involve litigation and thereby pile expense upon the various people who presumably are to be benefited by the Bill. On all those grounds, I oppose this Amendment.

Mr. Hoy: I want to concentrate my remarks on subsection (8) of the Amendment. I think subsection (7) is more clearly understood. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) was quite right in saying that this Amendment was not discussed during the Committee stage of this Bill, but was discussed on the English Bill. I believe it was one of my right hon. and learned Friends who, in Com-

mittee on the English Bill, drew attention to an anomaly, as he thought it was, which resulted in this Amendment appearing on the Notice Paper relating to the Scottish Bill.
I think it means that under the present Measure, if there were, say, 500 acres involved which were held jointly by two persons and they then divided it, they would have no right to claim compensation to which they might have been entitled. I understand that the purpose of this Amendment is this, that although they might divide the land between them compensation can still be paid to either of them as of right. If there were a sum of £500 for compensation, it does not alter that sum. Therefore, it does not add to the charge.
This Amendment, therefore, did not require to be recommitted, so the charge must be added to because of subsection (8), and it is that about which I want to inquire. Does it mean that the land which the British Transport Commission has taken over has now to be assessed in a different manner? Does it mean that, as a result of this Amendment, the Transport Commission will be asked to pay a sum larger than it has done heretofore? It seems to me that that is the only way in which the charge is being added to. I think it is a little complicated, and I am certain that the Committee would be grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate if he would either confirm or deny the point that I have made.

Mr. E. G. Willis: The Committee is bound to consider very closely the second subsection in the Amendment. I was noting with great care the ease with which the Lord Advocate tried to put his case over. He only devoted about six words to this matter, and when a Member of the Government devotes only six words to road hauliers I become rather suspicious of what is going on.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) has said, it seems that the obvious intention of this subsection is to increase the amount that the road hauliers have received in the past. I want to know whether the Lord Advocate can give the Committee any indication of the number of cases which are affected by


this Amendment and the sum likely to be involved. I think we have the right to know this. We ought to know, too, who is responsible. Is it the British Transport Commission, or is it going to be the road hauliers again when they take back the road transport which the Government are busily transferring to them?
What is the position? Are the road hauliers to compensate themselves? I think there would be a certain amount of justice in that, but I think we are entitled to have rather more information about subsection (8) and its effects than the Lord Advocate has so far told us. I think that all he said about it was that if this land was acquired at below use value plus the claim—that is the unexpended portion of the relevant value—then the owners would be able to claim additional compensation in respect of that land. Are we to understand that the British Transport Commission obtained this land at a low existing use value, or is it simply that it is now to receive something that it was never intended that it should receive when this House passed the legislation nationalising transport? We should have some answers to these points.

Mr. Woodburn: Assuming that the Amendments were agreed to, the claim holding under the Bill will be entitled to an addition of one-seventh in respect of compensation for the period which has elapsed since the original claim holding was settled. Are we to understand that if the Amendment is agreed to the road hauliers will not only get the claim holding but will also become entitled to the extra one-seventh, even though they did not have to wait all this time for compensation? Are they to be entitled to the extra one-seventh, which is in respect of a lapse of time which has not affected them? It seems that this will become payable unless some provision is made to prevent it.

The Lord Advocate: I want to deal as fully as I can with the various points which have been made. The hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) raised a question about the scope of the proposed subsection (7) and set out a series of circumstances in respect of which he wanted to know whether the Clause would operate. He put these sets

of circumstances more clearly than I could, and my answer, quite shortly, is "yes."
The hon. Member for Paisley, together with the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) wanted to know whether the proposed subsection (8) imposed any additional obligation upon the Transport Commission. The answer to that question is "No." It may involve an additional burden, but that burden will fall not upon the Commission but upon the Exchequer. I shall try to illustrate the circumstances in which that might happen. The complication arises from the terms of the British Transport Act, 1947, which provided that compensation in respect of transfers of land was to be paid upon the basis of the market value of the land, and it may well have happened, especially where the transferred land was not fully developed, that its market value was depressed to a point below the existing use value plus the unexhausted balance of the claim. It is understood that there are cases where that has taken place, and it is to provide for those and to enable the system to operate with complete fairness between all these people that we have decided that in these circumstances the basis should be the existing use value plus the unexhausted balance of the claim.
I have been asked how many such cases there are in Scotland. I can only say I do not know, and I could not possibly know. We anticipate that there may be some such cases, and even if there were only one it would be right to make provision for it so as to enable the person concerned to obtain fair treatment.
The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) asked me about the one-seventh supplement. The answer is that road hauliers will get the benefit of that supplement. It is part of the general settlement proposed in the Bill that the supplement of one-seventh should be paid in all cases.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: It is preposterous that road hauliers are now to get another gift. This supplement will compensate them for something in respect of which they need no compensation, and the matter will get into a complete tangle. First of all, road hauliers have received their compensation. The Bill now provides that if, by any chance, they received that


compensation in such a way that it deprived them of the right to a claim holding, they shall be given the extra compensation. In addition, we are to give them an extra one-seventh to compensate them for something which they have never lost. They have never suffered what the people who have not been paid their claim have suffered.
The matter does not end there, because we are now buying back these vehicles from the road hauliers, and so far as I can gather we shall not even get the value of what we have been handing back to them. We are giving them an extra one-seventh on top of the compensation, and will then buy back the vehicles, giving them another gift by not taking from them sufficient to pay for what they will get from us.
I have never heard of such a proposition. In a Bill which provides that nationalised industry is to be sold out, the people to whom it is being sold out, not only having received payment when it was sold out, are also to receive an additional sum of one-seventh. I do not understand the influence which road hauliers have with the Government. One would have thought that it was a Government of road hauliers; it has certainly been hauled all over the place. Money is being squandered in every direction for the sake of road hauliers. It is the biggest scandal in politics that I have heard of.

Mr. George Lawson: I am wondering whether this Amendment is not a violation of Part I. Clause 1 says:
The provisions of this Part of this Act shall have effect for requiring payments to be made by the Central Land Board, by reference to claims established under Part V of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947…
We have just been told that the sales or purchases of land by and to the Transport Commission were carried out under quite different conditions, and not under the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, for which, I understand, Part I of the Bill is an attempt to make what some people might call redress. Those purchases or sales were carried under a quite different set of regulations. We have been told that the law stated in those regulations was that the land should be acquired at market value. That is quite different from what is described in Part I,

and I should like to know whether or not the Amendment is really in accordance with Part I, or whether it is out of order.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I was rather surprised to hear that the Amendment cannot be dealt with on the Report stage. The fact that it has been recommitted shows that some extra charge is being thrown upon the Treasury. I was astonished to hear that the road hauliers are to receive something not from the Transport Commission but from the Treasury, but I suppose that is why the Bill has to be recommitted. I have been in the House for only three years, but it seems to me that this is one of the rare occasions where we have a Bill before us on the Committee stage and no one seems to know how much a certain provision will cost the Treasury.
When we make any proposal the Treasury wants to know how much it will cost, unless, perhaps, it is a matter relating to the Army, the Navy or the Air Force; but the Treasury always wants to know how much any proposal on a social matter is to cost. Surely, before this Amendment is passed, we ought to know how much it is to cost the Treasury. How much is this one-seventh that is to be paid out to road haulage undertakings to cost the taxpayers altogether? Those undertakings are being transferred to private enterprise from the British Transport Commission. Many have already been transferred. Surely, it is an easy thing for the Government to give the Committee some idea of how much more the taxpayers have to pay to the hauliers.
If we cannot have the answer today, cannot the Committee adjourn until the Secretary of State can find out just how much his proposals will cost? Then we can meet again. We could take the matter to the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. Hector Hughes: There is no one here from the Treasury to tell us.

Mr. Bence: My hon. and learned Friend is quite right. Our national economy has reached the stage now at which we cannot let things be passed without knowing what they are to cost the taxpayers. They are being committed to hundreds of millions of pounds expenditure by all sorts of agreements in London and elsewhere—hundreds of millions per annum. By this Amendment


they are being committed again. The taxpayers of Scotland are fed up with it. Surely we are entitled to have some idea of the cost. We do not ask to know the cost precisely to the last shilling or even to the nearest pound, but we do want to know how many thousands or millions of pounds this proposal will cost the Treasury.

Mr. D. Johnston: Am I right in thinking that the Lord Advocate informed the Committee that in the event of a road haulier's land having been acquired by the British Transport Commission, the land having been bought at what was then thought to be the market value of the land, the road haulier can now make another claim, saying, "The value that I got for the land that was taken from me was a low value because of the existence of the Town and Country Planning Act of that time"? Can he say, "I am entitled to a larger price, and I am also entitled to one-seventh of the total sum which I have received and will receive in the future"?
Let me give an example. If a road haulier's land was acquired for £100,000 under the Transport Act, 1947, and he now comes forward and says it should have been £110,000, is he now entitled to say, "I am entitled to one-seventh of £100,000 plus one-seventh of £10,000"? Is that the case? I can hardly believe it is so, because the one-seventh proposed to be given under the Bill was proposed to be given because of the delay in paying out under the compensation provisions of the original Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act. That is the first question.
The second question is why, if road hauliers are to be given this, is it not right that it should be given to those persons whose land has been compulsorily acquired under various other Acts, for example, the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act? Would the Lord Advocate inform the Committee of the answers to these two questions?

The Lord Advocate: I think the Committee is making a mountain out of a relatively small molehill. This is not a vast increase in financial obligations. The whole purpose of subsection (8) is to put the people whose property was taken over by the British Transport Commission

under the 1947 Act in the same position as—not to give them any further benefit than—other people whose land under various Acts has been acquired compulsorily. The road haulier will not get a payment under this Clause just because he is a road haulier. He will only get a payment under case B if he has put in a claim under the 1947 Act, and all he will get under that will be to put him into the same position as that of any other person whose land has been compulsorily acquired under all the various Acts under which compulsory acquisition takes place.
He will get only the difference between the compensation for compulsory acquisition proposed by this Bill, and what he actually received. If what he actually received was just as much as he would have got if the land had been compulsorily acquired under some other Act, he will not get a penny piece; but if he got something less, we think it right, and I am sure the Committee will agree that it is right, that he should be put into precisely the same financial position as that of other people whose ground is compulsorily acquired.

Mr. Lawson: My question has not been answered. I am asking whether or not these are claims that have been established. Are they already established claims? If they are established why bring them forward? Are they going to the Central Land Board now?

The Lord Advocate: That is so. These claims were put in and are with the Central Land Board now.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: The Lord Advocate has told us that the purpose of the Amendment is to treat the road hauliers in the same manner as other claimholders whose land has been compulsorily acquired. He has just said, without adducing any evidence that it is so, and I must tell him that some of us doubt it very much indeed. It is conceivable, is it not, that land was acquired compulsorily by the British Electricity Authority at a market value which may be less than the existing use value? Under what Act are those people given this comfort which is now being offered to the road hauliers?
In any case, am I not right in saying that much of this land that was transferred from the road hauliers to the British Transport Commission was not


compulsorily acquired at all? The Amendment says that the land should be treated as if it had been compulsorily acquired, but there are many cases in which road hauliers' land and business were transferred to the ownership of the Commission at an agreed price. I feel sure that the Commission thought at the time that it was paying an unduly high amount for the other assets being taken over, and, perhaps, not so high an amount for the land.
We cannot be easy in our minds about this proposal because we know from our daily experience that the road hauliers must have been much too generously treated in the first place, because much-improved assets are being retransferred to private enterprise at a much lower price than was paid for them in the first place; and now here we are being asked to ensure that these road hauliers shall be picked out by this Bill and given further compensation in respect of land which was theirs but which they freely sold to the Commission; land which was not compulsorily acquired, but land which is to be treated as if it had been compulsorily acquired. In many cases that land has been, or is in the process of being, re-transferred from public ownership to private ownership.
How can the Lord Advocate expect the Committee to accept this Amendment with the explanation he has given to us? I beg him to give us some real justification for this Amendment. If he does not endeavour to offer further justification then we must assume that there is none whatsoever for it.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Hoy: Perhaps this would give the Lord Advocate the opportunity to deal more fully with the point we have been discussing. I am not quite certain but I think that some further information was passed to him within the last few seconds, and it may be he would like to clear up what appears to be a dreadful anomaly.

The Lord Advocate: The reason this particular provision in the Transport Act does not apply in the case of other compulsorily acquired land is the wording in the Transport Act, and it is necessary to

make this provision apply to Transport Act acquisitions to put them in precisely the same position as other compulsorily acquired land.

Mr. Ross: But it will be remembered that under the Transport Act it was open to an owner of a transport business to compel the British Transport Commission to take over his business. Does this compensation relating to this land apply to such cases as that?

The Lord Advocate: It would not apply at all to this if the price at which it was taken over was on the basis under which compulsorily compensation is paid for acquired land. In other words, if the price were worked out at existing use value plus the unexhausted balance and if it did not exceed that sum, then that would be the measure of the matter and this particular subsection would not come into operation. It is only where something less than that is agreed that this subsection will come into effect so as to bring the figure paid up to what would have been paid under any other Act allowing for compulsory acquisition. That is all that the recently approved Amendment does.

Mr. Woodburn: I do not know whether I should refer to a recent very tragic case of suicide because, as the Committee knows, the road hauliers are not committing suicide. They are too prosperous. But there was the case of a person whose land was acquired compulsorily and the price paid for it was fixed much below that at which he purchased it. If that is the position with the road hauliers, then they might try and put in their claims in some roundabout way and the Commission would buy at above the value that the haulier had paid for it originally. Is there any possibility of that happening and the community being fleeced for such a purpose?

The Lord Advocate: Frankly, I do not think that that could happen.

Mr. T. Fraser: Could the Lord Advocate reply at least to one of the questions I put to him when we were discussing the Amendment? What is the position in regard to a piece of land which was transferred to the British Transport Commission at the market value and that was less than the existing use value? Does that become covered


by the new subsections in Clause 6 and what is the position if it is now retransferred to private enterprise?
It may be that some road haulier will get it back and it may very well be will pay very much less for the land than when the Transport Commission took it over. Can the learned Lord Advocate explain to us what is the position of that land now? He must not pretend that we are not now denationalising the road transport industry. That process is going on. He has been discussing this provision as though the Government are not denationalising road transport, but I could give him examples now of units that are being retransferred to private enterprise at give-away prices. Let him ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport what is happening to the Dumfries and Ayrshire depots?
If, under subsection (8) of this Clause, the land is transferred to the British Transport Commission at less than the existing use value, is any account to be taken in assessing payment of the price which private enterprise is now paying on regaining possession of the land? I wish the right hon. and learned Gentleman would tell us something about that.

Mr. Hector Hughes: May I put this simple question to the Lord Advocate? Is not the effect of the amended Clause that it gives the owner of land which was acquired under the Transport Act, 1947, the opportunity of selecting the price which he will be paid? If the land were acquired by agreement one sum would be agreed, but if, on the other hand, the land is acquired compulsory, another sum will be assessed. Is the owner of that land to be entitled to hold up the community to ransom and say, "I will take whichever is the higher sum"? If that is so, is that not putting the owner of such land into a specially favoured class as against the rest of the community, and is it not gambling with public money?

The Lord Advocate: I do not want to delay the Committee unnecessarily, because I have spoken a great deal on this Clause. If I may, I will answer the point put by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). He wanted to know what was to happen in the case of a haulier who handed over his property to the Transport Commission at a market

value which was less than he would have got for it if it had been acquired compulsorily under some other Act.
In the first place, if he had not put in a claim he would not get anything. This subsection applies only to the case of people who have put in claims. If he had put in a claim, however, under the Amendment which we have just approved he would get the money that he had received for his property made up precisely to the same amount as if that ground had been acquired under some other Act enabling compulsory acquisition to take place. We are here equating all the other people who had their land compulsorily acquired. The man in question is not better or worse than these others.
The re-transfer of land under subsequent Acts has, of course, nothing to do with this Bill. The Bill deals with claims on the £300 million fund, and it is endeavouring to try to equate those claims as fairly as possible between the various parties. The new subsections to Clause 6 are an endeavour to deal equitably with the haulier but only if he had an unfair deal in comparison with other people whose ground has been compulsorily acquired. That is the beginning and the end of what it achieves, and I trust that the Committee will now give the amended Clause their approval.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 18.—(UNEXPENDED BALANCE OF ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT VALUE.)

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): I beg to move, in page 22, to leave out lines 21 to 30, and to insert:
and
(b) such fraction of the value of any claim holding whose area includes that land as attaches to that land;
and the unexpended balance of established development value of that land immediately after the commencement of this Act (hereafter in this Act referred to in relation to that land as its 'original unexpended balance of established development value') shall be taken to have been an amount equal to eight-sevenths of the amount or aggregate amount so attributed.
As the Bill is drafted anomalies occur where compensation is payable by reference to unexpended balances and the


supplement of one-seventh. If I were to give the Committee an example it would clear up the position. I am supposing that the land had an unexpended balance of £700. In that case, the supplement would be £100 and on compulsory acquisition the owner would be entitled to receive £800.

Mr. Pryde: Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will explain what is this unexpended balance.

Commander Galbraith: I should have to go back to the beginning of the Bill to do that. We have spent days on this matter. This deals with unexpended balance of the claims against the £300 million. On compulsory acquisition there would have been compensation at £800. If, instead, the land were made subject to planning restriction, which caused a depreciation of say £490, under Part II of the Bill that sum would have been paid out by way of compensation and, therefore, there would have been left an unexpended balance of £210.
If, later, the land was compulsorily acquired, the position would have been this. The owner would get £210 plus the supplement of one-seventh of £210, which is £30. If we add this up, this is what we find. The dispossessed owner would receive £490, then his £210 plus £30, which is £730, and which is £70 short of the £800 which he would have got on compulsory acquisition.
The Amendment cures that anomaly by making a supplement of one-seventh an integral part of the unexpended balance. In other words, the unexpended balance is now multiplied by eight over seven, which is the figure on which we work.

Mr. D. Johnston: This is a sensible Amendment, which was originally suggested in the English Bill by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas). I am in favour of it.

Mr. Bence: It is not for me to criticise an hon. and learned Member on our Front Bench, but when I listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman giving his explanation of this Measure it took me back to my school days. We used to do some arithmetical juggling whereby one spent a couple of shillings here and there, multiplied it, added to it, subtracted from it and found out that we

were a shilling short in the end. No one knew where the shilling had gone. The arithmetical comedians at the Scottish Office, having found out that the previous owner of the land was losing £70, then devised an arithmetical process by which to give back to the private owner the £70 that was missing.
5.15. p.m.
So far as I know, this is the first time that our arithmetical system has been altered to suit particular people. It is a most extraordinary thing. If this sort of thing is allowed to go on, especially when a Bill which has been before the Scottish Grand Committee is committed to the whole House, people will imagine that in Scotland we do things in this way. That is not true. The Scottish people do not do things like that. They are most mathematical and logical. It is only Scottish administrators here who have peculiar arithmetical ways of overcoming what they imagine is an injustice to certain owners of land.
I have great respect for my hon. and learned Friend on the Front Bench, who said that he was in favour of this Amendment, but if a thing is worked out by arithmetic and it does not give people the benefit which they think it ought to, that is too bad. As an engineer who worked with machinery and equipment, I know that if the arithmetical formula did not suit the way I was working, I could not change the formula. I got the sack and the thing I was producing had to be scrapped. What happens here is that when the wrong formula is used we get Cabinet changes.
My hon. Friends who have been miners know that when working in the mines it is the calculations which lead to a certain thing. Here we have our Legislature bringing in an Amendment to alter the arithmetical system decided on for many years because it has been discovered that by that process some landowners in Scotland who have had their land acquired for public purposes—which is a just thing to do according to the ex-Minister of Housing and Local Government in his speech at Scarborough—are losing by it, and it is proposed to change the arithmetical system to make sure that they shall not lose a penny. None of these people has yet taken his own life. The Government want to make sure that the unexpended balance is paid back to


the full, so they change the system of arithmetic.
I hope that we shall get a far better explanation of this than we have had. Here we have £70 missing out of £800, and the right hon. Gentleman has given an arithmetical system by which to replace the £70. I am not satisfied with the explanation. Is it just that the owner of land for a certain period should get the full value set upon it every time? I do not see why he should not get £70 less. Many of us have seen our capital value decrease and our savings decrease in value since this Government came to power. Every £ which I have saved has been reduced in value by 2s., but the landowner is not to be allowed to lose anything on his land. I think that a better method should be found than changing the arithmetical system.

Mr. Hector Hughes: It is not without significance that the Lord Advocate, who has had the conduct of the Amendments up to the present, seems to have retired temporarily from the arena in favour of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who has taken over the explanation of this mathematical problem. It seems to me right that there should be that transfer of explanation, because I think that I am right in saying that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is a chartered accountant and is, therefore, perhaps more fitted to deal with this great problem of higher mathematics than, if the Lord Advocate will allow me to say so, a mere lawyer like myself.
Clause 18, which is under consideration and which it is sought to amend, was one of the Clauses considered by the Scottish Grand Committee after the Labour group had withdrawn in protest against the inadequacy of the time allowed for the consideration of this most complex Bill. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman admitted, in so many words, that this was one of the most complex Bills which he had ever come across, and he begged not to be put off the thread of his arguments because of its great complexity. The Amendment which it is sought to make in the Clause was not even hinted at in the Scottish Standing Committee. Indeed, to such a lower level had that debate fallen that we find on reading the OFFICIAL REPORT that the

hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson)—who, I regret to say is not now present—protested against the undue severity with which the 68 Clauses were going through and the lack of consideration that was being given to them. With the hon. Member I cordially agree that the Bill is defective in many ways. The Amendment will not cure those defects.
As was hinted by one of my colleagues, the Amendment is a rather indecent piece of political nudism because it shows in all its ugly nakedness an attempt by the Government to benefit a particular class. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) pointed out when dealing with the missing shilling of his school days, there is a missing £30 in every £100 which the Amendment seeks to find and put into the hands of a particular class. That is not the kind of thing that the Committee will stand for.
The Clause specifies the manner in which any unexpended balance of development value is to be dealt with. The Clause was as clear as any Clause in this complicated Bill, but the Amendment makes it still more opaque and obscure than it was. It provided that the unexpended balance of development value should consist of the aggregate of two things: the value
the value of any claim holding having an area consisting of …
the land referred to in subsection (1), plus
the appropriate fraction of the value of any claim holding whose area includes that land.
Subsection (3) defines "appropriate fraction." That, simple as it is, loses its simplicity when it suffers the attack of the Amendment.
Now, it is proposed to alter this by leaving out the word "appropriate" and its definition, which gave some flexibility to the Clause, and to insert instead a rigid proposal that
the unexpended balance of established development value … shall be taken to have been an amount equal to eight-sevenths of the amount or aggregate amount so attributed.
There is a certain amount of flexibility in the Clause at present, but the Amendment will remove it and thereby inflict hardship on the community by giving a special favour to a particular class.
Further comments could be made upon the Clause, as they could be made about


the rest of the Bill, but the Bill and the Clause are not under discussion. I have said enough to make it clear that the Amendment, so far from improving the Clause, will make it much more obscure and more difficult to administer in practice and, worst of all, will give a benefit to one class at the expense of the rest of the community. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be defeated.

Mr. Lawson: The position in the first place, as I understand it, was that when the claims were established it was expected that they would be paid out fairly soon, but that since payment came later and we appreciated that there would be considerable delay in meeting the claims, there was to be a payment of interest. The one-seventh about which we have been speaking is, as it were, a capitalisation of the interest, the payment at 3½ per cent. between 1948 and 1953, so that the one-seventh added to the total of the original claim makes the total of the original claim eight-sevenths.
We are dealing only with claims that are due to be paid. The position with which I am concerned is whether the claims that are not due to be paid but will arise in the future will all be transferred from original claims on the basis of the one-seventh and become claims of eight-sevenths rather than the former seven-sevenths. In other words, is this interest payment, which arises from the delay in payment between 1948 and 1953, to be carried forward and placed on all the claims that have not yet arisen to be paid? Is it a future payment as well as a past payment?

Mr. Pryde: Earlier in the debate I said that the Government had treated the Committee in a cavalier fashion and that the Amendments altered the whole theme of the Bill. I now go a stage further. The conduct of the Government on this occasion is disgraceful. They are doing something of which no Government could be proud and upon which the people will judge them at the next Election.
What the Government are doing is to blackmail the people's Treasury to benefit a certain section of the community, who are certainly not supporters of this party. They are saying that any land that was valued at £700 in 1948 will now be paid for at the rate of £800. That is nothing

short of sheer blackmail of the people. I ask the Government to consider the problem fairly and honestly and to withdraw the Bill, take it back again, and see that it is drafted, as it should be drafted, as a piece of constructive legislation.

Mr. Ross: I want only one simple question answered. There is, obviously, a difference between the original Bill and the Amendment. It is a difference in money, because the arithmetical quotation by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman ended up with somebody getting a little more money than he would have got as the Clause now stands. What will be the aggregate cost to the Treasury if we pass the Amendment?

Commander Galbraith: In reply to that last question, I cannot give a definite figure but it would be no more than was intended in the first place. As the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) said, the intention in the first place was that the one-seventh should be added to the unexpended balance in the name of interest between the two dates. The hon. Member for Motherwell asked me a specific question. The answer is "Yes, it will be an integral part of the amount forming the ceiling of compensation in the future." That is how we arrive at the one-seventh; we put on a limit. The money has not been paid within the period, and so the interest will attach to future claims.
I need not deal seriously with the points made by the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde). It is not a question of benefiting a certain section of the community. The whole object is simple—that they should not be treated differently when their land is compulsorily acquired. We thought that the original text of the Bill meant that they were treated equally but we find, in fact, that they are not and we have therefore put down the Amendment to ensure that the original purpose is accomplished.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: It means, in effect, that all these future claims, from now for as long as the Act is in operation, will be increased in the total amount by one-seventh.

Commander Galbraith: Yes. I think the hon. Member understands it quite clearly. The interest payment, which is represented by the supplement of one-seventh, will attach to all claims.

Mr. Pryde: So the Minister admits that the Government are altering the whole tenor of the Clause.

Commander Galbraith: No, I do not admit that at all. All we are doing is correcting a mistake which we did not previously observe.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I press for a clearer answer to the question put to the Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)? My hon. Friend's question, which was quite clear, sought to discover the aggregate sum of money, but, instead of telling us that, the Minister said it would not exceed something else. Surely the Committee have a right to be given an approximate total figure for what this proposition will cost. We should press for an answer.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Member must be well aware that no one could answer that question. We do not know what claims will arise in the future. No estimate can be made. We do not know what land will be acquired compulsorily by various authorities between now and doomsday. If the hon. Member can arrive at a figure for that, I congratulate him.

Mr. Pryde: We may take it that it will not be much. It never is much for Scotland, anyway.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 23.—(COMPENSATION EXCLUDED IN CERTAIN CASES.)

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 26, line 31, to leave out from operations," to the end of line 33.
This Clause deals with compensation being excluded in certain cases. It lays down that compensation shall not be payable in respect of the imposition on the granting of planning permission of any conditions relating to various matters and it goes on to state what they are in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). The provision which we are excluding by the Amendment is that in Clause 23 (1, b), which was intended to relate only to the

rather infrequent case where planning permission was sought for a means of access by itself—that is, not linked to a new development.
It has been pointed out in the interval that the provision is capable of other interpretations and is open to the danger that it might be applied to prevent a development which in the view of the authority is undesirable, without liability for compensation, merely by refusing permission for a means of access. We have not found it practicable to devise a form of words which would make the intended limitation plain and it has therefore been thought best, as the problem is one which will very seldom arise, to delete the provision altogether.

Mr. D. Johnston: I see the purpose of the Amendment, but I suggest that the deletion of these words creates another anomaly. If the Amendment is carried, is it not the case that refusal of permission in connection with the
formation or laying out of any means of access to a highway
will qualify for compensation? May I have an answer to this question? Surely it is a simple question. I will give the right hon. and gallant Gentlemen time to collect his thoughts by repeating the question. The effect of the Amendment is to remove what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman considers to be an anomaly, but in removing it, is he not creating another anomaly by allowing compensation in the circumstances for which provision is made in subsection (1, b)? I suggest that that clearly is so.

Commander Galbraith: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is correct, subject to the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Hector Hughes: This Amendment should not be accepted without a fuller examination. The Clause is concerned solely with the circumstances in which compensation shall be refused. It is mandatory and it applies in three kinds of case—three kinds of case in which compensation shall be refused.
Incidentally, at an earlier stage the Government induced the Standing Committee to insert an Amendment about the display of advertisements, which is now part of the Clause, but the aspect with which this Amendment deals is that which comes within the mandatory part of the Clause. Compensation shall not be payable in


respect of the refusal of planning permission in these three cases. One relates to development arising out of
building, engineering, mining or other operations.
The second relates to the
formation or laying out of any means of access to a highway.
I invite the Committee to notice the similarity between these two kinds of exclusion. One relates to building and engineering and the other relates to means of access to a highway. The third relates to the display of advertisements, and nothing turns on that.
The Amendment would eliminate that part of the Clause relating to highways, and no adequate reason has been given why that should be done. Where is the line of principle to be drawn between the first and second set of exclusions? I draw particular attention to the similarity between them and remind hon. Members that building, engineering and mining is to be retained and the laying out of a means of access is to be omitted.
At the end of the first paragraph occur the words "or other operations." What are "other operations"? Does the phrase mean
the formation or laying out of any means of access to a highway"?
If this vagueness and ambiguity is permitted in the Statute, will it not give rise to litigation and expense and to difficulty in administration?
If the Amendment is accepted, the expression
for the formation or laying out of any means of access to a highway
will be deleted and anomalous consequences will follow. What will become of subsection (7) of this Clause, which reads:
In this section the expression 'means of access to a highway' does not include a service road"?
It should be noted that this expression occurs also in Clause 23 (2, e) in a somewhat similar connotation to that which is now sought to be deleted. The Minister should explain this, because both involve the refusal of compensation. If one goes out, therefore, why should not both go out? If it is the intention of the Government to exclude compensation in respect of means of access to a highway under Clause 23 (1, b) why not exclude it also

under Clause 23 (2, e)? Is it the intention to accept or reject the entire idea of compensation in respect of access to a highway?
If the intention is to reject the idea, then why not delete it in both cases? If, on the other hand, the intention is to accept the idea, why not accept it in both cases? If there is a distinction in meaning between them, I invite the Minister to explain it. It is obvious that this simple and innocent Amendment will give rise to complications which the Minister should explain in order to avoid confusion in administration and consequent expense to all parties affected by this complicated Statute.

Mr. William Hannan: The Committee would be grateful to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman if he could say at what stage and when this anomaly was discovered. In introducing the Second Reading of the Bill he said:
The White Paper foreshadowed that compensation was to be excluded for planning restrictions imposed in the interests of good neighbourliness, and it cited the 1932 Act as a precedent for that. The Clause in this Bill—Clause 23—follows that Act closely, and I do not think anyone could possibly challenge the proposed code which is laid down as being harsh. Certainly, since the publication of the Bill, there has been no violent criticism, and the planning authorities consider that it is rational and workable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 12th May, 1954; Vol. 527, c. 1244 and 1245.]
By putting down this Amendment the Government have evidently concluded that the Clause is irrational and unworkable. What is the point of making this alteration? The subsection which it is proposed to omit refers to—
the formation or laying-out of any means of access to a highway.
If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at subsection (7) he will see:
In this section the expression 'means of access to a highway' does not include a service road.
That seems to be related to the subsection we are discussing.
My point is that first a Clause is introduced, which is then qualified by an Amendment, and subsequently further qualified by this statement in subsection (7). If Clause 23 gives effect to all the good things suggested by the right hon. Gentleman on Second Reading, at what stage and where was the anomaly discovered which now makes subsection (2, b)


redundant? This Bill is complicated enough in all conscience, so will the Minister consult his advisers about the seeming contradiction between his statement during the Second Reading debate and what he has said today?

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I understand that during the debate on the English Bill the Minister moved the deletion of a similar part in response to certain questions put by my hon. Friends at the time which raised certain anomalies. The Minister then found it impossible to supply words to cover those anomalies and therefore he deleted the entire passage. However, in doing so, he created further anomalies, and the position is as reasonable as the old story of the man who told another that he was not fit to live with a pig, whereupon his friend said in his defence, "I assured him that you were." There must be a happy medium which will meet the anomalies to which we object but does not create the anomalies produced by this Amendment.
In another part of the Bill there is a provision that if a local authority refuses planning permission on the ground of good neighbourliness, they are not bound to pay compensation. I do not know whether safety is included in that definition. If, for example, planning permission for access to a road is refused on the ground of the safety of children, does it mean that compensation would have to be paid, or are they protected from paying compensation for doing what is right in the interests of the community? I hope the Government will make another attempt to find adequate words when this Bill goes to another place.

Mr. Willis: In his argument for the deletion of these words the Minister said that the power might be wrongfully used by local planning authorities, but surely the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not deny to local authorities the right to use it in a proper manner simply because there might be cases in which it might be used wrongly. Surely alternative words could be found to give local planning authorities the right which it was considered they should have when this provision was first inserted.

Mr. Ross: I am not entirely satisfied with the reasons given by the right hon.

and gallant Gentleman. If local planning authorities use this provision improperly the Secretary of State can be appealed to by anybody who is refused permission to develop, so if that is the sole objection to the words, it is covered already by existing legislation. The Minister has told us that he does not know what is the financial commitment of the Treasury under this Bill, how many claims there will be, or what development there will be.
There are many people who would like compensation. It is obvious to everyone that one of the ways of obtaining compensation is to get the local planning authority to refuse permission. If people did not know that before, they know now, thanks to the Government's having to think a second time and having put something in the Bill in the first place which they now wish to delete. People know that one of the things for which they can apply for permission, and apply in such a way that it will be refused, is to lay out a means of access to a highway.
That can be done by every owner of a bungalow throughout Scotland. It can be done in such a way that the local planning authority, for good planning reasons, will have to refuse the permission. People may never have thought of it before but, thanks to the explanation now given, all they need to do is to have that planning permission refused and they obtain compensation under this Clause.
This will also affect the local planning authorities. They are not going to turn down plans to develop, even if those plans are such that they really feel they should not be carried out, if turning down those plans will make them liable to pay compensation. I am not at all satisfied that the way in which the Amendment has been explained in any way leaves me convinced that it is absolutely necessary to make the change.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) referred to what I said in Committee about good neighbourliness. I do not depart from what I said then, but I suggest that if this provision were left in the Bill it might be rather tempting to local authorities to use it for purposes other than that for which it was intended. The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) asked if the local authority would have to pay compensation. Under


Part II of the Bill it is the Secretary of State who pays and not the local authority. Provision is made in Clause 23 (2, e) that no compensation is payable by anyone on the imposition of conditions, made, for example, in the interest of safety, restricting means of access to a highway. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) raised much the same question as the hon. Member for Maryhill.

Mr. Woodburn: I gather from what the right hon. and gallant Member now says that if permission to have access to a highway is refused on the grounds of safety, compensation is not payable.

Commander Galbraith: I repeat what I said, that under Clause 23 (2, e) no compensation is payable by anyone on the imposition of conditions in the interests of safety restricting means of access to a highway.

Mr. Ross: What about the absolute refusal of access in the interest of safety? That was the point made.

Mr. Willis: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman answer the specific point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that local authorities might be tempted to use this provision for undesirable purposes and my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock asked about the final right of appeal to the Secretary of State. If there are certain undesirable purposes for which local authorities might use this provision, I should have thought that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to have a better opinion of Scottish local authorities than is implied in his Amendment.

Commander Galbraith: We can all be tempted in certain circumstances. The hon. Member knows that as well as I do. If means of access is refused there will be no compensation, unless the value of the land is definitely depreciated as a result of the refusal.

Mr. Willis: But what about the right of appeal to the Secretary of State?

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 43.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 20 OF PRINCIPAL ACT.)

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 45, line 14, at the end, to insert:
and paragraph 1 of the Fourth Schedule to the principal Act shall have effect subject to a proviso that the value of any interest, as calculated for the purpose of assessing compensation payable under section twenty of that Act, may be a minus quantity.
The 1947 Act used the code of the 1919 Acquisition of Land Act for valuing compensation due on revocation of planning permission. That compensation is the difference between the value of the land with planning permission and the value of the land without planning permission. If the land were burdened with a feu-duty it generally would have a minus value on revocation of planning permission. Let us suppose that we have a piece of land the agricultural value of which was £50. The value with planning permission I assume to be £200. If that planning permission were withdrawn there obviously would be a loss of £150, for which compensation should be paid.
The fact that the land has been feued should really make no difference to that, but if the land were feued, say at £10, the capitalised value of the feu-duty would be £200. Since £200 is the value of the land with planning permission, then that minus the capitalised value of the feu-duty is, of course, nil. If one considers the agricultural value, one has an agricultural value of £50 minus the capitalised value of the feu-duty of £200, which means minus £150. The 1919 Act code would oblige the valuer to regard both values as nil or nominal and therefore no compensation would be payable.
If, however, minus values were taken into account the arithmetic would work out on the following lines. It would be £200 minus £200, giving nil as before, minus minus £150 and since two minuses make a plus the true depreciation is £150, as I pointed out in the beginning when I said that the value of the land for agricultural purposes was £50, that with planning permission it was £200 and that if planning permission was withdrawn there was a loss of £150. We are departing from the 1919 code so that the minus values can be brought into account


where loss has been suffered and compensation is due to be paid. The Amendment ensures that minus values are brought into account.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. D. Johnston: I hope that the Members of the Committee understood the argument, which I am sure was ably presented by the Joint Under-Secretary. I confess that I am completely fogged. I thought I had understood the Amendment, but it is clear from the explanations which have been given that I have not.
May I put this to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman? Used agricultural land has an existing use value of £50 and the land, with a development permission, has an existing use value of £200. The land has a feu-duty charge on it of £10 which will capitalise in 20 years at £200. On the hypothesis of the feu-duty the land is split into two. One owner is the owner of the dominium utile and the other is the superior. What claim has the owner of the dominium utile and what is the value of the claim under this Amendment? Secondly, what is the value of the claim of the owner of the superiority under this Amendment? I confess that I knew the answers to these questions before I heard the explanation, but I am quite confused as a result of it. It appears that the answers that I had arrived at are quite wrong if the explanation was right, which I doubt.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. D. Johnston: When the Amendment was before the Committee, I asked what I thought were perfectly reasonable questions. I think it is a matter of considerable importance that we should get an explanation. I should have thought the questions I asked were capable of simple explanation. From the hurry that has gone on behind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to the Box and back again I gather that the answer has now been provided by the Box. Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could read it?

Commander Galbraith: I thank the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. Johnston) for his courtesy. I do

not know whether he is aware that there is a later Amendment which may very well affect the situation; no doubt he is aware of that and no doubt that is why he asked the question. The answer is quite obvious. The owner of the dominium utile loses his £150. That is the first gentleman I was asked about, although I am not very good at Latin. The answer is £150 and, under Clause 68, that sum might well be diverted to a superior.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.— (ASSOCIATED COMPANIES.)

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Part I of this Act, no person shall be entitled to a payment under sections six, eight, nine, eleven or twelve of this Act by virtue of a transaction between companies which at the time of the transaction were associated companies.

(2) Where a company is the holder of a claim holding, then, for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not that company is entitled to a payment in respect of the holding under Part I or Part V of this Act, any act or event which occurred in relation to another company which at the time of that act or event was, or after that time but before the twenty-sixth day of February, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, became, associated with the company which holds the claim holding shall be treated as having occurred in relation to the company which holds the claim holding, and an interest in land held by any other company for the time being associated with the company which holds the claim holding shall be treated as being held by the company which holds the claim holding.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a company shall be treated as associated with another company if, and only if, within the meaning of section one hundred and fifty-four of the Companies Act. 1948, one of those companies is a subsidiary of the other, or both those companies are subsidiaries of the same holding company.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The principle underlying this Clause is a quite simple one, that a group of associated companies is to be treated as one person for the purpose of entitlement to a payment under Part I or Part V of the Bill. In other words, transactions and claims between associated companies are not regarded as qualifying for payment under Part I by subsection (1) of the new Clause. On the other hand, payments will not be debarred simply because the claim is in the hands of one member of


the group while the act or event giving rise to compensation occurred in relation to another member of the same group. The idea is to treat these associated compaines as one person for the purposes of compensation.

Mr. D. Johnston: I wish to ask two questions in reference to the new Clause, which, so far as I can see, is a very sensible one. The associated companies are affected only, according to the new Clause, by Clauses 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12—that is B, C, and D class claims, except under Clause 12—but under Clause 12 there is a claim for residual payments in cases analogous to cases A and B. If Clause 12 is brought in, is it not necessary to bring in Clauses 4 and 5, which are Class A cases, because the analogous A cases are brought in by Clause 12?
The second question is: in view of the Amendments we have made and the Amendments to Clause 6 subsection (7), is it not now necessary that that Amendment should be taken note of in this new Clause and appropriate amendment made in this new Clause?

Mr. Hector Hughes: Like so many of the Amendments we have been discussing today, this new Clause is intended to extend privileges to a new class. It extends the rights hitherto enjoyed under this legislation by companies to associated companies.
Recently in the courts and in the Press we have heard of certain scandals arising out of that kind of thing—one company associated with another in the holding of land or in the collecting of rent—which gave rise to a great deal of unhappiness and fraud. It was very difficult for people who had contact or business with one of these companies to know under which thimble was the pea. It was very difficult for people doing business with one of these companies to know who was the proper person to sue and who were the directors amenable in certain circumstances. The Committee should consider this new Clause with meticulous care with a view to seeing whether or not it opens the door to that kind of thing.
The explanation which has been given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite so far has not satisfied me, at all events, that this is the right kind of Clause to incorporate in the Bill. The Clause

seems to be associated in thought or in idea with the ideas underlying the earlier Amendment to Clause 6. That Amendment, the Committee will remember, related to persons who are jointly entitled to a claim holding. People who are concerned in a company are people who are jointly concerned in a certain enterprise or interest. Now we have this Amendment, which is related to the persons indicated who are jointly entitled to a claim holding.
The new Clause relates to a company which is the holder of a claim holding. One thing that it does above all others is to extend to associated companies, so that where one company is the holder of a claim holding and becomes associated with another company they shall both be entitled to the benefits, whatever they are, under this Bill.
Questions which I invite both or either of the Government spokesmen opposite to consider are: why should this benefit be conferred on companies? Why are not individual holders benefited in a similar way? What "act or event"—that is the phrase in the new Clause—is contemplated by those three words? What is the significance of the date mentioned in the new Clause, namely, 26th February, 1954, and what is to happen if the "act or event" occurs outside the dates specified?
Subsection (1) of the new Clause seeks to impose disabilities on persons mentioned in the particular Clauses set out therein—Clause 6, which deals with Case B payments, namely, in "compulsorily acquired" cases; Clause 8, which deals with Case C payments: Clause 9, which deals with Case D payments; Clause 11, which deals with Case B claims, and Clause 12, which deals with Cases A and B which are residual payments.
On that, I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman why the Government seek to exclude from the new Clause the other Clauses which are not there mentioned? They are, Clause 4, which deals with payment where development charge was incurred by the claim holder or his predecessor in title to land; and Clause 10, which deals with payment, in Cases A, B and C, to persons deriving title to a claim holding from the original claim holder. The Ministers concerned should give answers to these questions.
Certain answers occur to me because I have given great study to these Clauses, but they may not occur so readily to non-lawyers or to persons who are pecuniarily or financially affected by the Bill. We all know that tragedies have occurred arising out of this kind of thing. The Pilgrim case, Mr. Pilgrim's suicide, is very fresh in our minds. That arose out of a set of circumstances concerning a valuation of his land, land in which he had invested his life savings and was then offered a very small sum for its compulsory acquisition. This is not only a technical matter, but may be one of life and death to people whose moneys are put into the purchase of land of this kind.
It is, therefore, essential that the Committee should scrutinise this new Clause with the most meticulous care with a view to defining its limitations and seeing exactly why it is being put into the Bill and why, under it, associated companies should be singled out for special treatment.

6.15 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) seems to be under the impression that this new Clause is conferring some kind of benefit upon associated companies. In fact, of course, it does the very reverse. The hon. and learned Member made great play of what fraudulent tenancy arrangements between associated companies might possibly lead to. I am happy to say that that kind of thing is not very common in Scotland.
The object of the new Clause is to treat, for the purposes of this Bill, all these legal personae—associated companies—[Interruption.]—these legal persons in the eye of the law who are really closely related and controlling one another, as if they were one person, not a number of different persons. That is the effect of the new Clause. Therefore, the very fraudulent fictitious transactions which the hon. and learned Member envisaged and deprecates are the very things which are to be regarded as utterly out of the picture in connection with this Bill. That is what the new Clause is designed to do—to treat all these associated companies as if they were just one company.
The hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) asked me why certain Clauses were referred to

in subsection (1) of the new Clause while certain others were not, in particular cases A, B and C. Case A is not really relevant to the present question. Clause 5 is concerned with cases in which a development charge has been paid to the Board. Subsection (1) of the new Clause is concerned solely with transactions in land between associated companies, not those of associated companies in relation to the Board. It is concerned solely with transactions in land between associated companies, and no development charge arises in regard to those cases. Accordingly it does not seem to me necessary to refer to further Clauses than those already mentioned in subsection (1) of the new Clause.

Mr. Johnston: I follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument on that point. Will he deal with my other point as to the necessity for an Amendment to meet the Amendment which has already been made to Clause 6?

The Lord Advocate: I am very sorry that I forgot that. The hon. and learned Gentleman raised the point of whether provision should be made in this Clause for joint holdings. The idea is that this provision, which will treat all these various concerns as if they were one concern, is the appropriate method of dealing with associated companies. I think that if we were to incorporate provisions about joint holdings we should only complicate the matter. The new Clause says that these associated companies are to be treated as one, not as joint holdings, for the purposes of the Bill.

Mr. T. Fraser: I think the Lord Advocate said in reply to my hon and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) that he was quite wrong in thinking that this new Clause conferred a benefit upon the associated companies. I think he made it quite clear that in his view this would not lead to any additional payments from the Exchequer to associated companies. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I gathered so. I rose merely to ask whether the reason we are taking this new Clause on Recommittal and not on Report is because it will impose further charges on the Exchequer. I wonder if he will make the point clear, because we gathered from his reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North that this would not impose a charge.

The Lord Advocate: I do not think I said that it will not impose a charge, I did not mean that. It certainly will impose a charge. But if the hon. Member will look at subsection (1) of the new Clause, he will see that what it says is that nobody shall be entitled to a payment under certain Clauses of this Bill,
by virtue of a transaction between companies
which were associated companies. The primary purpose of this subsection, which is what I have been dealing with, is that associated companies are to be treated as one person and not as a group, or as different people who might otherwise qualify for payment.

Mr. Willis: The question still has not been answered. If these people would have been entitled to payment without this Clause, and they now cease to be so entitled because of this Clause, how does that increase expenditure, which is the question asked by my hon. and learned Friend a short time ago? I think that we should have an answer to this, because I have been trying to puzzle out why this Clause appears on Recommittal stage instead of Report stage. Earlier the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that this Clause conferred no new benefit on anyone, and I think that we are entitled to a much clearer exposition of the matter.

Mr. Hector Hughes: May I draw the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to subsection (2) of the new Clause? He confined himself to subsection (1) and said that that subsection, and therefore the whole of the new Clause, does not confer any advantage on anyone—meaning thereby a company. But look at subsection (1) which states:
Notwithstanding anything in Part I of this Act, no person shall be entitled to a payment under"—
so-and-so—
by virtue of a transaction between companies which at the time of the transaction were associated companies.
Then subsection (2) goes on to say—I leave out phrases in order to make my meaning clear—
Where a company is the holder of a claim holding, then for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not that company is entitled to a payment in respect of the holding under"—
so-and-so—

shall be treated as having occurred in relation to the company which holds the claim holding.…
Surely that would give a benefit, would transfer a benefit from what I might call the primary company to the associated company. Ex hypothesi the associated company does not have any interest in the matter at all until it comes within the purview of this subsection. The company that has the benefit is what I call the primary company and this Clause transfers to what it calls "associated companies" certain benefits in the words to which I have just referred.
It seems clear to me—I hate to say it—that the learned Lord Advocate has misconstrued the whole Clause by confining his attention to subsection (1) and leaving out of consideration altogether the words in subsection (2) which I have just quoted.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence, through indisposition, of Mr. SPEAKER from the remainder of this day's Sitting.

Whereupon SIR CHARLES MACANDREW, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.—(PROVISION OF INFORMATION AS TO UNEXPENDED BALANCE, ETC.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Central Land Board shall, upon application therefor being made to them at any time by any person, and may at any time, if they think fit, without any application being made therefor, issue a certificate in the prescribed form with respect to any land stating whether or not any of that land has an original unexpended balance of established development value and, if it has such a balance—

(a) giving a general statement of what was taken by the Board for the purposes of Part V of the principal Act to be the state of that land on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight; and
(b) specifying (subject to any outstanding claims under Part I or Part V of this Act) the amount of that original balance;
and any such certificate may, if the Board think fit, contain additional information with respect to acts or events in consequence of which, by virtue of any provision of this Act,


a deduction falls to be made from that original balance in determining the unexpended balance, if any, of established development value of any of that land at any time thereafter.

(2) Where, after the commencement of this Act, a notice to treat has been served with a view to the compulsory acquisition of an interest in any land by any public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers, being such a department, authority, person or body of persons as is mentioned in subsection (1) of section thirty-five of this Act, that authority may apply to the Central Land Board for, and shall be entitled to the issue of, a certificate showing the unexpended balance of established development value, if any, of any of that land immediately before the service of that notice.

(3) Where the issue of a certificate under this section with respect to any land involves a new apportionment, then—

(a) except in the case of a certificate under the last preceding subsection or of a certificate which the Board propose to issue without any application being made therefor, the certificate shall not be issued otherwise than on the application of a person for the time being entitled to an interest in the land;
(b) before issuing a certificate, the Board shall give notice in writing to any person entitled to an interest in land which it appears to the Board will be substantially affected by the apportionment, giving particulars of the proposed apportionment and stating that objections or other representation with respect thereto may be made to the Board within thirty days from the date of the notice; and
(c) the certificate shall not be issued before the date of expiration of the said thirty days, and, if at that date an objection to the proposed apportionment has been made by any person to whom notice has been given under the last preceding paragraph, or by any other person who establishes that he is entitled to an interest in land which is substantially affected by the apportionment, and that objection has not been withdrawn, the next following subsection shall have effect.

(4) Where by virtue of paragraph (c) of the last preceding subsection this subsection is to have effect, then—

(a) if within a further period of thirty days the person by whom any such objection was made refers the dispute to the Lands Tribunal, the certificate shall not be issued until either the Tribunal has decided the matter or the reference to the Tribunal has been withdrawn;
(b) the certificate may be issued before the expiration of the said further period if every such objection has been withdrawn; and
(c) the certificate shall be issued at the date of expiration of the said further period notwithstanding that every such objection has not been withdrawn, if no reference to the Lands Tribunal has by that date been made under paragraph (a) of this subsection.

(5) Where, on a reference to the Lands Tribunal under this section, it is shown that a new apportionment relates partly to the same matters as any previous apportionment and is consistent with that previous apportionment in so far as it relates to those matters, the Tribunal shall not vary the new apportionment in such a way as to be inconsistent with the previous apportionment in so far as it relates to those matters.

(6) An application for a certificate under this section shall be made in such form and manner as may be prescribed, and shall be accompanied by sufficient particulars, including a map if necessary, to enable the land to be identified and, where a new apportionment will be involved, particulars of the nature of the applicant's interest and such information as to the nature of any other interest in the land and as to the name and address of the person entitled to that other interest as may be known to the applicant.

(7) On any application under subsection (1) of this section, the applicant shall pay in the prescribed manner a fee of five shillings and, if the application involves a new apportionment, the certificate shall not be issued until the applicant has paid in the prescribed manner a further fee of fifteen shillings.

(8) In this section, the expression "new apportionment" means an apportionment which relates wholly or partly to any matters relating to which there has not been a previous apportionment.—[Commander Galbraith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause gives effect to the promise I made during the Committee stage to my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley). What I said, when he was moving a new Clause about the keeping of a register of land having an unexpended balance was:
As I understand it, none of us has a right at the present time to get information from the Central Land Board."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 22nd June, 1954; c. 254.]
I went on to say that on Report stage as a result of that situation we intended to put in a new Clause to give to the appropriate persons the right to obtain from the Central Land Board such information as it is necessary for them to have. It is as an implementation of that promise that this new Clause appears and its purpose is to do just that; to give the right of obtaining from the Central Land Board such information as it is necessary for them to have. I could go on, but it is rather a long Clause and that


is substantially what it does. I do not think it necessary for me to go into all the details.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Member who moved this in Committee raised a point which had been raised by my hon. Friends in regard to the passing of the English Bill, but I gather from what the Minister has said that he has not been able to meet all the points about making this information available to private persons, and that the information, as we see from the Clause, is divided into two or three different categories.
So far as I gather, local authorities will be able to obtain complete information about unexpended balances from the Central Land Board, and private persons will receive other limited information, because it, is not the business of the Central Land Board to make this information available to all and sundry. I think it advisable for the record that the Minister should explain this a little more, and tell us how it will work.
What will local authorities get in the way of information? What will private individuals get and how will it be obtained? It is not clear from what he has said. I do not wish to embarrass him by asking for a complete explanation, but I think that these two cases should be enunciated quite clearly and that we should be told about the different categories of information.

Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: Before my right hon. and gallant Friend replies, I wish to thank him for meeting the request made by some of us during the Committee stage. We thought that the better way of dealing with this was to require the local authorities to keep a register of unexpended balances. We thought that the local authorities, being local, would be more accessible to prospective purchasers. During my speech I said that it did not matter to me whether it was done by the local authorities or by the Central Land Board. What we required was records to be kept and that everybody should have easy access to those records. As I understand it, both these things have been provided in the new Clause, and I wish to thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for the way in which he has met our request.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Ross: We have had a scant explanation from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He started by saying that the new Clause was introduced as a result of a promise which he had made during the temporary absence of the Opposition when the Bill was before the Standing Committee. The promise was made to his hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley). The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he would try to get information made available to appropriate persons.
I have been studying the new Clause and I can find no relation at all to the question of limiting this information to appropriate persons. The Clause starts by saying:
Subject to the provisions of this Section, the Central Land Board shall, upon application therefor being made to them at any time by any person…
Anyone can apply to the Board and get the information. Later we discover in subsection (7) that they have to pay a fee of 5s. for the information, but the question of appropriate persons does not arise. Anyone at any time will be able to ask the Board for a certificate.

Sir William Darling: It says, "if they think fit."

Mr. Ross: It is not the Government or anyone else but the Central Land Board. Not only that, but the Board can give all sorts of other information which it might well be not appropriate for them to receive.

Mr. Willis: The words, "if they think fit" really apply to what follows and not to what goes before.

Mr. Ross: I agree. It says:
…and may at any time, if they think fit…
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) has omitted the important word "shall" after the reference to the Board. It states that they shall:
…issue a certificate in the prescribed form.
I do not know what the prescribed form is. That was not explained to us. Then is says:
…and any such certificate may, if the Board think fit, contain additional information with respect to acts or events in consequence of which


We should have been given some explanation of the circumstances in which the Board may volunteer this additional information not to appropriate persons but at any time to any person—and all for the expenditure of 5s. When we discuss Estimates we often talk about the number of people employed in the Government service, but if we are to have this kind of seeking after what may well be useless information which takes up the time of the civil servants all for a modest fee of 5s., we are entitled to more explanation.
The Joint Under-Secretary has taken this question far too lightly. He should remember that I am making a speech now and that if I get up to put a question on any other point I shall be ruled out of order. We are now on Report stage and we can speak only once. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman may be less entitled to the latitude he was allowed in Committee. It would have been far better if the Government had looked at this matter earlier and if, instead of rushing the Bill through, they had taken their time in Standing Committee. I certainly will have some questions which I should like to put to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman but I shall be debarred from doing so because the new Clause has been introduced on Report and we have been given scanty information when it was introduced.

Mr. Willis: I agree that we ought to have had a fuller explanation. I cannot understand the first subsection. It seems to be very wide, because "any person" can apply for a certificate. It is even wider than might appear because the words are:
The Board … may at any time, if they think fit, without any application being made therefor, issue a certificate in the prescribed form…
To whom do they issue a certificate? If nobody has applied for a certificate, to whom will the Board give the certificate? I cannot give the answer. We require a much better explanation of this long and involved provision.

Mr. Hector Hughes: There seems to be a little natural confusion about this Clause—I say "natural" because here we have a Clause which takes up 74 lines on the Notice Paper and which has no

fewer than eight subsections; but we have had no adequate explanation of it. The reason for the lack of explanation may be that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not understand the provision himself. Indeed, in Committee he went so far as to beg not to be taken off the thread of his discourse lest he might lose the meaning of the argument he was trying to present. That is really no criticism of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself; it is criticism of the Bill which we all agree is one of the most complicated Measures which has ever come before the House. Therefore it is understandable that there should be some confusion about this 74-line Clause.
The first part of subsection (1) contains a mandatory provision and a permissive part. The mandatory part relates to "any person." How can we have a mandatory provision which relates to any person, unnamed and in no class? There is nothing to indicate who such a person is. The provision is that:
…the Central Land Board shall, upon application therefor being made to them at any time by any person…
Then we come to the permissive part:
…and may at any time, if they think fit, without any application being made therefor, issue a certificate.
There is nothing to indicate to whom the certificate is to be issued. There is nothing to indicate the considerations which will operate upon the mind—the composite or aggregate mind—of the Land Board when considering the question of fitness. What kind of argument is to be submitted to the Board? How are the people affected to know what kind of case to present? How are they to know how to induce the Board to say that they think fit or do not think fit. Assuming that, in their wisdom, the Board do think fit, after weighing all the considerations, what do they think fit to do? They think fit to issue a certificate in the prescribed form, but there is no indication to whom it is to be issued. Perhaps it is to be issued to this person of no class who is not mentioned and whose class is not even indicated in the Bill.
I am dealing with only the first four lines of the Clause, but I think I have said enough to awaken in the minds of hon. Members a desire to be spared my analysis of the remaining 70 lines. If four lines of the Clause contain as much


ambiguity as I have shown, the rest of it certainly should not be accepted by the House.

Commander Galbraith: If I may, with the permission of the House, speak again, it is obvious, particularly from the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), that I ought to have gone a little more fully into the matter than I did when I moved the Second Reading of the Clause.
The object of the Clause is clear in the minds of hon. Members. It is to empower the Central Land Board to supply information, something which it has not the power to do at the present time. As far as I know, and I was glad to have reassurance. the Clause does what my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) wanted. He said he wanted to ensure that information would be available to persons who required it.
As to the actual provisions of the Clause, where there is no new apportionment at all anyone may apply to the Board for information about the original unexpended balance and about the state of the land on 1st July, 1948.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that anyone might apply. Do I take it that any person would be provided with information although it was evident that he was not concerned in the matter but might gain financially by obtaining information?

Commander Galbraith: I do not think my words were capable of misinterpretation. I said that where no new apportionment is involved anyone may apply to the Board for information about the original unexpended balance and the state of the land on 1st July, 1948. Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot misunderstand that.

Mr. Ross: What my hon. Friend does not understand is to whom the information is to be provided. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said "to whom it was appropriate."

Commander Galbraith: If the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, that may emerge later in my explanation.
Where apportionment is involved—that is to say, where information about part only of the original claim area is sought—the information will be supplied only to persons entitled to an interest in the land. In general, that information should be enough to enable most people buying or selling land to make a sound assessment as to the price to be asked for or offered in the light of the compensation provisions in the Bill.
Much of the Clause is taken up with the machinery required in apportionment cases. The whole of subsections (3) and (4) deal with it. Provision is also included for reference of a dispute to arbitration. Because of the possible effect of apportionment upon the interests of others, the procedure is necessarily lengthy. The Board is also required to supply on request to local authorities in cases where a notice to treat has been served, up-to-date information about the balance attaching to the land in question, including the result of any necessary apportionment. That is dealt with in subsection (2).

Mr. Hector Hughes: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman draws attention to the fact that the information will be issued to local authorities and that that is expressed in the Clause. Can he explain why similar phraseology is not used in the first four lines? To whom is the information to be issued? Nobody is mentioned. Not even a class of persons is mentioned.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Ross: Before the right hon. and and gallant Gentleman leaves that point, if information has to be sent to other people who have an interest in the land, will the Board know what other people are concerned? Subsection (3, b) says:
…the Board shall give notice in writing to any person entitled to an interest…
Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied that the Board will have information of such persons in view of the fact that objection may be taken under subsection (3, c)? There may well be considerable confusion as to other people who have an interest in the land.

Commander Galbraith: I pointed out that it might take some little time to deal with matters when apportionment was


concerned, but the information is available and can be made available to the interests concerned. That is provided for in the Clause; the Clause instructs the Central Land Board to do so. I cannot put it plainer than that. It is apparent that the Clause deals at great length with the various points which hon. Gentlemen have raised.
Where no apportionment is involved, the Board will be able to answer inquiries almost at once, but where there are apportionment cases a much longer time will be necessary, especially if a dispute arises.

Mr. Ross: Will the Central Land Board have up-to-date information about those who have an interest in the land apart from those who are asking for information? This is an important matter? Objection has to be taken within 30 days.

Commander Galbraith: There will be regulations which will deal with this matter.

Mr. Ross: They are certainly needed.

Commander Galbraith: In any case, the Central Land Board will take steps, so far as it is humanly possible to do so, to ensure that all who have an interest are covered.

Mr. George Lawson: The Clause states that information is to be given about the state of the land in 1948 and the unexpended balance of established development value. I imagine this implies what has happened to the unexpended balance, whether it has been reduced and, if so, to what extent. Another very important factor in the state of the land in 1948 would be the restricted use value of the land. Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman state whether that information will also be given?

Commander Galbraith: I assume that the provision means that the Board will make all relevant information available.

Mr. Willis: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has still not made clear the provision empowering the Board to issue certificates if they see fit without application being made. For an application made under subsection (1) a person must pay 5s., and if an apportionment is involved, he must pay £1. Who are the

people to whom the Board may issue certificates without being asked for them, and do they pay anything at all? Are they local authorities, or do the Board say, "There is Tom Smith. We will give him a little information which he does not possess"?

Commander Galbraith: It seems to me that one case might be where it was well known that a public authority needed the information. It would then be possible for the Board to issue the information. The point is that the information is made available. Surely if the Board are going out of their way to make information available to someone who needs it without that person having to ask for it, that is all to the good. I do not understand what the hon. Member is complaining about.

Mr. Willis: I am not complaining. I am merely asking for clarity. I take it that if a person does not apply for the information he does not pay anything for it, but if he applies for it he will have to pay for it.

Mr. Hoy: This is an important point. The first part of the Clause refers to an application being made to the Board at any time by any person. One can well understand that there will probably be a number of people who will have or may have an interest. Indeed, if one cares to read the debate on the Report stage of the English Bill, when an Amendment similar to this was being dealt with, one finds that the right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill said that there would be a considerable amount of work to be done in this connection. The Board will have to gather all this information, and, in fact, the right hon. Gentleman was stressing the necessity to get the Bill through before the Parliamentary Recess as so much work had to be done before the end of the year. We can all understand that, but, surely, it is competent for my hon. Friend to ask for an answer to his question about the second part, of which there may be some quite simple explanation?
It is very difficult to believe that the Central Land Board will have so little work to do that it will issue statements of this kind to no one in particular. Surely, there must be some good reason for the Central Land Board undertaking this job? Surely, someone must ask for


the information before the Central Land Board provides it? If we leave the matter where it is now, it will mean that the Central Land Board will say to somebody M the office, "Make out six cases condemning six properties and issue the necessary certificates." To whom are they to be issued? To the general public? Surely, there must be some reason for the Central Land Board acting in that way?
We are asking the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to explain to the House what the second part of the first subsection means, and to tell us who are the people to whom these certificates will be issued. I should have thought that that was a very simple question, and one that could be easily understood. I am certain that either the right hon. and gallant Gentleman or the learned Lord Advocate will now be willing to give us a reply, because we cannot leave the position such that the Central Land Board will be making out and issuing these certificates to nobody in particular. Surely, somebody wants the information, and perhaps he will tell us ho that person is?

Commander Galbraith: I should have thought it was fairly obvious, and I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) should be so concerned about people getting information. The point, surely—as I think the hon. Member will agree—is that, in cases where an apportionment is involved, it will require information to be given by a certificate, even to people who have not made an application, but who are nevertheless affected by the apportionment. There is a case, straight away, and I hope that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Willis: If that is the case, should it be not obligatory on the Central Land Board to supply all the people affected with that information, rather than supply it to some without charge and to others for a fee of £1?

Commander Galbraith: The new Clause does not say anywhere that the charge cannot be waived.

Mr. Hoy: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that there may be A case in which, where an apportionment has taken place, somebody has to get the

information, but, surely, the information ought to be made available to every party concerned? All we want to know is whether that is to be done, and it is no use the right hon. and gallant Gentleman giving us a little lesson about the 5s. on first application and another 15s. on completion, because we know all about that. All we say in reply to that is that, if that information is to be made available to one person, surely it ought to be made available to every party concerned in that particular transaction.

Mr. Manuel: I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will try to clear up this point, because there is no indication that the payment will be waived. Surely, in the first instance, the Clause mentions the sum of 5s., and later refers to a further 15s. where an apportionment has taken place. In the second instance, where the information or the certificate is to be supplied by the Central Land Board, there is no question of payment, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman really cannot ride away on the statement that payment is to be waived, because it is not there to be waived. There is no payment where the Board is supplying the information. The Minister cannot logically justify a situation in which, where persons are asking for information, they pay an amount stated, but where the Land Board themselves have had to send it to another person, no payment is to be made. We must have a better explanation than has so far been advanced by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Commander Galbraith: With permission, I will reply to the points raised by the hon. Members for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). I think it was the latter hon. Member who asked in the first place who are the people who will be getting the information. They are the people who have an interest in the land and who may be substantially affected by the apportionment but who do not make the application, even though they may be substantially affected. Those persons will not pay.

Mr. T. Fraser: I wonder if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will now undertake to the House that he will have this new Clause amended in another place. He has now said that it is limited


in its operation, as far as the granting of certificates without application is concerned, to cases where an apportionment arises, but it is not so limited as it is now drafted. In point of fact, I waited for the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) to say that it would be made available to people who speak the same language. Anyhow, these people will have information made available to them.
The new Clause states that the Central Land Board may at any time give a certificate containing this information, but it does not say that they should issue the certificate to certain persons of certain classes, but only that they shall issue the certificate. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that it is the intention of the Government that, where there is an apportionment and an unexpended balance, and where there are persons who have a considerable interest in the apportionment but who have not made an application for a certificate, they shall be granted a certificate. That is what he said.

Mr. Willis: For the smaller people.

Mr. Fraser: Yes. They have to pay 5s., and then if there is another application there will be a further 15s., but the people with a substantial claim will get it for nothing. I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to express his appreciation of the inadequacy of the Clause as it stands at present. We are all much in favour of this information being made available, and, indeed, I do not think we should be adverse to it being made freely available to interested parties, including local authorities. There would be no harm in making it available to these persons without charge.
As the Clause is now drafted, the Central Land Board can grant to me a certificate containing information, which I ought not to have at all, about the unexpended balance concerning certain owners of certain land. I think that is quite wrong, and that this Clause really ought to be examined again. As the Joint Under-Secretary explained it to us, I think we are all willing to accept the principle and the purpose of the Clause, but, unfortunately, it seems to us—as I am sure it must also seem to the Joint Under-Secretary and the Lord Advocate, who is trained in the law—to be much

too loosely drafted. I therefore beg of him to say that the Government will have another look at it and see if the drafting cannot be improved in another place.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Steele: I want to ask again for the information which was asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). He put the point that there was nothing in the Clause to suggest that the certificate would contain information about the original use value of the land, the restricted use value. There will be information about the unexpended balance, etc., but my hon. Friend was anxious to know whether one of the items was this question of the restricted use value. When my hon. Friend was speaking, certain papers were coming from the Official Box which might have been an answer to his question. Perhaps the Minister might now be able to give us the information.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 1.—(PAYMENTS BY REFERENCE TO ESTABLISHED CLAIMS.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, at the end, to insert:
(6) References in this Act to the amount of an established claim are references to the amount determined, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, under Part V of the principal Act as being the development value of the interest in land to which the claim related:
Provided that the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of determining that amount; and where that amount was determined at a time before the commencement of this Act as an amount less or greater than it would have have been apart from the provisions of the said First Schedule, that determination shall be deemed not to have been made.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It might be for the convenience of the House if we took this Amendment and the next one, to leave out Clause 2, together.

The Lord Advocate: The object of the Amendment is to add at the end of the Clause an additional subsection. It is a drafting Amendment to simplify the Bill. The proposed new subsection (6) replaces subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 2, which will disappear under the other Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 2.—(AMOUNTS OF ESTABLISHED CLAIMS, AND GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF APPORTIONMENT.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 3, line 15, to leave out Clause 2.

Mr. Willis: When the Lord Advocate moved the previous Amendment he stated that it would simplify the Bill and that the new subsection (6) would cover subsections (1 and 2) of Clause 2. May I ask him what will happen to subsection (3) of Clause 2?

The Lord Advocate: It is there still. That is the answer.

Mr. T. Fraser: The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to treat the House with a little more respect. He says that the subsection is there still, although he has moved an Amendment to delete the whole of Clause 2. I ask him to treat the House with more courtesy.

Mr. Hoy: Surely the Lord Advocate will want to correct that statement, which will go on record. What the Lord Advocate has just said should not be left where it is. He has moved to delete the whole Clause, but when my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asks what is to happen to subsection (3) of the Clause the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, "It remains where it is." Obviously, if we delete the whole Clause the subsection is bound to disappear with the remainder of the Clause. My hon. Friend is asking the Lord Advocate to say what is to happen to the subsection. If the Lord Advocate presses his Amendment to take out Clause 2, the subsection must go.

The Lord Advocate: It would be out of order for me to go into this matter in detail, but in point of fact subsection (3) of Clause 2 reappears in a later Amendment. If the House agrees to it, the subsection will remain in the Bill. It is true that the whole of Clause 2 goes out under this Amendment, but I hope that the subsection will not be lost but will remain in the Bill in the Amendment with which we shall deal later.

Mr. Willis: Which is the Amendment?

The Lord Advocate: The Amendment in page 4, line 40.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 3.—(CLAIM HOLDINGS AND THEIR AREAS AND VALUES.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, to leave out "section in this Act references," and to insert "Act references therein."
This again is a drafting Amendment. The value of a claim is affected by provisions other than those in Clause 3, and the Amendment is put down in order to give effect to that position.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 4, line 1, to leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The next three Amendments, and the Amendment in page 5, line 9, are related, and might be taken together.

The Lord Advocate: There was a criticism in the Committee about the number of matters left to regulations. The purpose of the Amendment I have moved is to get these provisions into the Bill rather than to leave them to regulations. The Amendment, and the proposed subsection (4), provide for the creation of separate claim holdings, each with its own area, where there has been a transmission by assignation or by apportionment of land, of part of the benefit of an established claim.

Miss Margaret Herbison: All my hon. Friends welcome these Amendments. We raised in Committee the fact that many things were to be left to regulations, so these are very important Amendments indeed. The Lord Advocate ought to have given much greater explanation on this point. Every time I have listened to him or to one of our Scottish Ministers I am reminded of the way in which the English Bill was handled by the English counterparts of our Ministers. On this particular Amendment there was an explanation by the Attorney-General occupying three columns of HANSARD. It is not to be wondered at that my hon. Friends have to get up after the Scottish Minister speaks and to seek for explanations that ought to have been given.
Although we welcome the Amendments, the Lord Advocate ought not to expect us to go to HANSARD for further information and to read the explanations given by the English Attorney-General.


If the Lord Advocate will give some further explanation it might expedite the Bill, which is what he wants to do.

Mr. Willis: I wish to ask one question on this very long and involved Amendment, and, in passing, to comment on the rather cavalier manner in which the Lord Advocate is treating the House. We have already deleted a Clause by an Amendment which was most inadequately explained by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and within about two minutes we have passed another three Amendments. We have now come to a long and complicated Amendment which is to take the place of Government regulations. In other words, this long Amendment sets forth the policy which the Government had in mind when they put the words into the Bill—that they would take powers to make regulations. Therefore, we are discussing something entirely new—what the Government intend to do about this matter—and I should have thought that we ought to have been given a much fuller explanation than we have indeed received.
I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether this Amendment in page 4, line 40, covers the case which I raised in Committee, and which, in spite of a very long cross exchange, was not very satisfactorily answered—the case of a person who has acquired a piece of land on which to build a house and who has since built a house upon it. Does that person now become entitled to the unexpended portion of the development value? That was the question which I raised in Committee, but we left the Committee in protest about the shortness of time before we received a proper explanation on the point. I would like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say whether this Amendment covers such a case, and whether the person who has bought the land does, in fact, become entitled to the unexpended portion of the claim plus the one-seventh interest.

The Lord Advocate: The point does not really arise on this group of Amendments, but the answer to it is that if the transaction took place prior to the coming into operation of this Bill then the claim is a personal claim which does not transmit unless there is a provision in the contract between the purchaser and the

seller. If, on the other hand, it takes place after the Bill becomes an Act, then the unexpended balance would pass along with the land to the purchaser. It would all depend on the date of the purchase and the terms of the contract between the parties concerned.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 27, leave out from "holding," to "was," in line 28.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 4, line 40, to leave out from beginning, to end of line 44, and to insert:
value and an area.
(4) Where by virtue of any transmission of part of the benefit of an established claim different persons became entitled to different parts of that benefit, then, as from the date of that transmission (in this subsection referred to as 'the relevant transmission'), each of those different parts shall be treated as having constituted a separate claim holding, and the area and value of each of those separate holdings at any material time after the relevant transmission shall be taken to have been such as may, on the occasion of an apportionment affecting that holding falling to be made for any of the purposes of this Act, be determined by the authority making the apportionment or, where that authority's determination is referred to the Lands Tribunal under any provision of this Act, by that Tribunal, to be just and appropriate in all the circumstances; and in making their determination the authority or Tribunal shall in particular have regard to the following principles, that is to say—

(a) that the aggregate of the values of all claim holdings representing parts of the benefit of the same established claim shall not exceed the amount of that established claim;
(b) that, subject to the preceding paragraph, where a claim holding representing part only of the benefit of an established claim has been assigned to the Central Land Board within the meaning of the Second Schedule to this Act, otherwise than as is mentioned in paragraph 2 of that Schedule, and by virtue of that Schedule any deduction falls to be made from the value of that claim holding by reference to an amount due by way of development charge, the value of that holding at the time of the assignation shall not be taken to have been less than the lesser of the two following amounts, that is to say—

(i) the value attributed to the holding for the purposes of the transaction with the Board; or
(ii) the amount due as aforesaid


(c) that, in the case of the claim holding representing the part of the benefit of an established claim which was the subject of the relevant transmission, not being a claim holding to which paragraph (d) of this subsection applies—

(i) the area of the claim holding should be taken to be the claim area of that established claim less the area of any claim holding to which the said paragraph (d) applies which represents part of the benefit of the same established claim; and
(ii) the value of the claim holding immediately after the relevant transmission should, subject to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection, be taken to have been that part of the amount of the established claim to which the holder purported to become entitled under the terms of that transmission;
(d) that where any person who has been entitled to a claim holding representing part only of the benefit of an established claim—

(i) at any time while so entitled has also been entitled to the interest in land to which the established claim related in so far as that interest subsisted in part only of the claim area; and
(ii) became entitled to both that holding and that interest in such circumstances that the authority aforesaid or, as the case may be, the Lands Tribunal are satisfied that the holding and the interest were intended to relate to one another,
the area of that claim holding should be taken to be that part of the claim area, and the value of That holding immediately after the relevant transmission should, however that or any other transmission affecting the holding was expressed but subject to paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection, be taken to have been an amount equal to so much of the amount of the established claim as might reasonably be expected to have been attributed to that part of the claim area if the authority determining the amount of that established claim had been required to apportion it, in accordance with the same principles as applied to its determination, between that part and the residue of the claim area.
(5) References in this Act to the fraction of the value of a claim holding which attaches to a part of the area of the holding are references to so much of the amount of the established claim of which that holding represents the benefit or part of the benefit (in this subsection referred to as 'the relevant established claim') as was properly attributable to that part of the area of the holding:
Provided that where, by virtue of any provision of this Act, the value of the claim holding at the time in question is to be treated as less or greater—

(a) in a case where the area of the holding and the claim area of the relevant established claim are the same, than the amount of that established claim; or
(b) in a case where the area of the holding consists of part only of the said claim area, than so much of the amount of the

relevant established claim as was properly attributable to the area of the holding,
the amount of the fraction aforesaid shall be treated as reduced or, as the case may be, increased proportionately.
For the purposes of this subsection, the part of the amount of the relevant established claim which was properly attributable to any land forming part of the claim area shall be deemed to be so much of the amount of that claim as might reasonably be expected to have been attributed to that land if the authority determining that amount had been required to apportion it, in accordance with the same principles as applied to its determination, between that land and the residue of the claim area.

This is the main Amendment.

Miss Herbison: Surely the Lord Advocate is not just going to get up in his place and say, "I beg to move" in the case of an Amendment which is not only a very long Amendment, but one which contains very important matter. There are many parts—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think I suggested to the Lord Advocate that these three Amendments and the next one might be taken together, and I thought he had done that.

The Lord Advocate: I did.

7.15 p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire. North (Miss Herbison) asked that the Lord Advocate should give the House some explanation of this most obtuse and confounding phraseology. I defy anyone to understand it, and I think that out of courtesy alone the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have replied to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: When I suggested that these three Amendments and the next one should be taken together, no one in the House took exception to the suggestion.

Mr. Hoy: That, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is quite correct, and no one would dissent from what you say, but one naturally thought that we should have an explanation from the Government Front Bench concerning these Amendments. On the previous Amendment, the Lord Advocate said that certain words were being deleted and that a new subsection was being added for the purpose of clarity.


As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said, this takes the place of the regulations originally provided for in the Bill. It is surely reasonable to ask that the Lord Advocate should give a little explanation of this Amendment, if that is at all possible.

Mrs. Mann: If he can.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I should have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have been asked this question before we left the first Amendment of this series.

The Lord Advocate: The last thing I wish to do is to delay the Committee unnecessarily and, therefore, I will try succinctly and as shortly as I can to give an explanation of the proposed new subsection (4) contained in the Amendment to line 40 which is part of the group that we have been discussing.
This Amendment is primarily a drafting Amendment. It does two things. It sets out in the body of the Bill, instead of in regulations as provided for in subsection (2)—that subsection having been taken out of the Bill by one of the previous Amendments in this group—the provisions covering transmissions by assignation or by operation of law of part of the benefit of an established claim. That is the first thing it does. The second is to embody in its last few lines the substance of Clause 2 (3) which was taken out of the Bill by an earlier Amendment. The new subsection (5), which is part of the Amendment with which we are concerned at the moment, replaces the Fourth Schedule and simplifies its provisions, so that, although it looks very formidable, there is, I think, nothing really alarming in it and no matter of new substance involved in it at all.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I thought that the Amendment leaving out the Fourth Schedule went with the two Amendments at the bottom of page 3887. Is that wrong?

The Lord Advocate: Yes, that is so.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: But not with this one?

The Lord Advocate: No.

Mr. Hoy: This is rather misleading, because what the Lord Advocate said was

that it went with this one. Now. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you tell us that it does not go with this one, but with the Amendments at the bottom of page 3887. That is why we are seeking some clarity in the matter.

Mr. D. Johnston: I am in a further difficulty. The difficulty to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) has referred is a difficulty to which you yourself have referred, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Does not the second part of subsection (5) deal with the part we have already deleted, namely, Clause 2 (3) of the Bill as printed, as amended by the Scottish Grand Committee? Am I not right in thinking that is so?

The Lord Advocate: I do not want to interrupt my hon. and learned Friend, but he is quite right. It is Clause 2 (3), but it is not as amended in Scottish Grand Committee but as amended at this sitting of the House today by the Amendment in page 3, line 15.

Mr. Johnston: I appreciate that, but as the result of the Amendment which we made just a few moments ago we have to put in this Amendment to the Clause with which we are now dealing. I follow that part. If I may say so, that is pure mechanics. My difficulty arises from the first part of this Amendment which, as the learned Lord Advocate says, deals with the regulations which were to be made had this Clause stood as it came from the Scottish Grand Committee. What the Lord Advocate has not explained to us is the effect of this provision which is now subsection (4).
I have read these with some little care and I confess I really do not understand what they are intended to do. I do suggest, however, that it is wrong for a Government to put down a lengthy Amendment like this and then to say that it is merely consequential or merely arises from another Amendment. That, I suggest, is not treating the House with the courtesy to which it is accustomed.

Miss Herbison: I do ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give an answer. If, as the Bill was originally drafted, regulations had been made under it, all hon. Members would have had a chance of examining those regulations. These regulations are no longer to be made, but we now have


incorporated in the Bill what exactly has to happen. Like my hon. and learned Friend the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston), everyone on this side has difficulty in understanding just what this new part which is being inserted in the Bill really means. I feel that on this side we have a right to ask the Lord Advocate to give an explanation on this point.

The Lord Advocate: If I may be permitted to address the House again, I gather that what is wanted is an exposition as to the meaning of the words in subsection (4).
This subsection provides that where a claim has been divided between different people each part of it is to become a separate claim holding. The area and value of each of these separate holdings is to be determined when the occasion for an apportionment affecting the claim holding arises. That will be done by the Central Land Board or by the Secretary of State as the case may be, subject to a right of appeal in accordance with certain principles. Perhaps it would be sufficient were I to indicate three of these principles.
The first is that the sum of the values of the holdings is not to be more than the value of the original claim. That is obviously right. In the second place, where the claim holding, but not the land, passed, the value is to be that part of the amount of the established claim conveyed in the assignation. That is the only reasonable basis upon which to work if we are to try and value the proportion of the total claim holding which has been assigned. Where the claim holding and the land have been associated, the area of the holding is to be taken as the area conveyed, and the value of the holding is to be the part of the original claim which is determined to be appropriate to it, irrespective of how much was actually assigned, calculated in the same way as it would have been calculated under the 1947 Act. That is as briefly and clearly as I can put the substance and effect of this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 5, line 9, to leave out from "holding," to "means," in line 10.
This is only a drafting Amendment. It is identical with the Amendment with which the House has already dealt in page 4, line 27.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 6.—(PAYMENT WHERE INTEREST IN LAND COMPULSORILY ACQUIRED OR SOLD AT PRICE WHOLLY OR PARTLY EXCLUDING DEVELOPMENT VALUE (CASE B).)

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 7, line 14 to leave out from first "was," to "to," and insert:
entitled in the same capacity both to the claim holding and.
At the same time we might consider the Amendment in page 11, line 35, which inserts exactly the same words in the subsequent Clause. This and the following Amendment are there to make it clear that where the Bill speaks of the holder of a claim holding being entitled to the interest in land to which the claim relates it means entitled in the same capacity. He must be entitled in the same capacity. For instance, he could be entitled to the claim holding as an owner and entitled to an interest in the land as a trustee. It is merely an Amendment for clarification purposes.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 7.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS RELATING TO COMPULSORY ACQUISITIONS AND SALES FOR THE PURPOSES OF CASE B PAYMENTS.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 11, line 4, to leave out from beginning, to first "the," in line 6.
Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if we also took those Amendments in pages 11 and 12.
The first Amendment is purely drafting and is consequential on the dropping of the Fouth Schedule which follows on one of the other Amendments. The other Amendments are drafting and consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 11, line 21, leave out from "section," to first "the," in line 23.—[Commander Galbraith.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 8.—(PAYMENT WHERE LAND DISPOSED OF BY GIFT (CASE C).)

Amendment made: In page 11, line 35; leave out from the first "was," to "to," and insert:
entitled in the same capacity both to the claim holding and."—[Commander Galbraith.]

7.30 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 11, line 37, to leave out:
otherwise than by will or donation mortis causa,
and to insert:
being a gift by virtue of which he parted absolutely with the whole of his beneficial interest in that land.
This Amendment is designed merely to clarify the scope of the Clause more precisely. Where a gift is made by donation mortis causa, the gift is revocable and the donor retains while he lives an interest in the subject of the gift. The gift does not become an absolute one until the donor is dead, and falls if the donee predeceases him. The purpose of this Amendment is to clarify that situation beyond doubt.

Mr. D. Johnston: In view of what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State said before about his dislike of the Latin language, can he explain the meaning of the words "donation mortis causa?"

The Lord Advocate: I will make certain of it and will inform the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 12, line 13, leave out from first "section," to first "the," in line 15.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 11.—(PAYMENT IN CASES ANALOGOUS TO CASE B.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 13, line 34, to leave out from "B," to "if," in line 36.
This is a drafting Amendment. The words proposed to be left out are unnecessary, as Clauses 6 and 10 both relate to case B payments. In any case, they are no longer accurate since the new Clause about associated companies also confers rights under case B. This drafting Amendment makes the matter more consistent.

Amendment agreed to

Orders of the Day — Clause 12.—(RESIDUAL PAYMENTS IN CASES ANALOGOUS TO CASES A AND B.)

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 15, line 41, at the end, to insert:
References to an interest in land which has been acquired or sold includes (unless the context otherwise requires) references to the conveyance of an interest in land by feu charter and "acquired or sold" shall be construed accordingly, and in relation to any such conveyance any reference to the price shall be construed as a reference to the capital value of the consideration for the conveyance.
The Government will have recognised the words in this Amendment as being the words which they have on page 75 of the Bill. This is a most important matter for Scotland, and, while the Joint Under-Secretary did not mention at an earlier stage of the Bill that this provision was made, I think it is important that the Government should give a clear explanation that a person who has feued land instead of buying it is entitled to all the rights of a person who is an owner or a purchaser under this Bill.
A great deal of misapprehension and apprehension has existed in the case of people who have feued their houses at an exorbitant feu relative to the value of the land. In other words, many people who bought land bought it not at use value but at use value plus development value. They found that they had to pay the development value in addition We have heard, for instance, of the sad case that has been referred to in the Press, in which a person paid the whole lot and then had no claim on the development value.
On the other hand, there are people who have purchased their houses and who are paying a feu much in excess of what they would have paid had they known the conditions existing under the Town and Country Planning Act. These people, of course, have already paid the development value to the persons who sold them that feu. If it was only the purchaser who was entitled to recover that development value, then the person who had feued a house might be excluded.
The purpose of my Amendment is to make clear in an early part of the Bill that the person who purchased a house and feued the land is entitled to all the rights of the person who bought the land


and had a claim; and that that claim attaches to the feu just as it would have attached to the land which was sold at a price which included the development value. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will make a clear statement which will bring home to the mass of the people in Scotland who do not purchase but who feu land that they have rights no less than the rights of people in England who purchase land.

The Lord Advocate: The right hon. Gentleman has made perfectly clear the purpose underlying this Amendment. Let me assure him as clearly as I can that the purpose of the Government is, by this Bill, to put feuers as well as the ordinary purchasers in a position whereby they can secure the benefits to which they are entitled. In other words, the answer to his question is: Yes, quite definitely.
As I follow it, the only difference between us is that he is seeking to put at this early stage in Clause 12 a provision which I think he recognises we have already got later in the Bill, in Clause 72 (8). The only difference between us is not one in our objects or desires, but it is that he wishes to insert a provision a little earlier. We have already got it in Clause 72 (8), and I suggest that it would be a pity to put it in twice. There is no doubt about the purpose of his Amendment and our agreement with that purpose. We have endeavoured to give effect to that purpose in Clause 72 (8). In those circumstances, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not insist on this Amendment, which would merely repeat at this stage what is already in the Bill.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least promise that he will consider whether the provision could be brought into the body of the Bill? There is clearly something wrong when a provision of such importance to such a large number of people in Scotland comes a the tail-end of the Bill, as a kind of definition. It ought to be in the body of the Bill.

The Lord Advocate: I see the force of that suggestion, and I will certainly consider it and see whether we can rearrange it.

Mr. Ross: I sincerely hope that the Lord Advocate will look at this matter again. The normal way of purchasing ground in Scotland is by way of feus.

Mr. Hoy: Some people pay double feu-duty.

Mr. Ross: Yes, that is so. The point is that those people who managed to build houses when the original Act was in operation, until the withdrawal of the development charge, found that there was no change in the feu-duty. That certainly applies to the part of the Scotland that I know well. Such people were paying much the same feu-duty as they would have done if they had been building prior to the introduction of the first Act which introduced development charges.
People were paying high development charges, and it is to assist people in that position, who have already paid high development charges and who are now responsible for paying feu-duty for now and ever more, that we are moving this Amendment, so that such people may get the full benefit of Scotland's portion of these millions that are being paid back. I think the Lord Advocate fully understands what we are after. From what he has said, it seems that he has a certain amount of sympathy with the feuer.
I sincerely hope that he will treat seriously the question put latterly by my right hon. Friend, because the normal way of holding land in Scotland is by obtaining a feu, no purchase price being paid. In that event, I do not see why persons should have to look at subsection (8) of the interpretation Clause at the end of the Bill to see what is the position. It should be made perfectly clear in the body of the Bill, and I hope that the Government will look again at the question. I hope that a considerable number of changes can be made in another place, so that the feuers may be given a clear understanding of their position and will be able to derive some benefit from the Bill.

Mr. Willis: The Lord Advocate said that it was undoubtedly the intention of the Bill that the feuer should be placed on the same footing as the person who purchases land. When I asked a question about the self-same thing previously, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the answer depended upon the terms of the assignation. Does this question


also depend upon the terms of the agreement regarding the feu? It is important to know whether or not it is included. If so, my hon. Friends will be very disappointed.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I have known cases where people have feued land on which to build houses and have paid a fairly high feu-duty. In my view they are certainly entitled to some compensation in respect of development value. I should like to have an opinion from the Lord Advocate as to the position.

The Lord Advocate: I do not understand the point, but if the hon. Member will have a word with me afterwards, I may be able to clear it up. It does not really arise from the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — Clause 14.—(APPLICATIONS FOR PAYMENTS UNDER PART I.)

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 18, line 4, to leave out from "requiring," to "and," in line 7, and to insert:
the Board, in a case where the determination of such an application involves an apportionment, to give notice of the proposed apportionment to any person entitled to an interest in land which it appears to the Board will be substantially affected by the apportionment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): It may be for the convenience of the House if, together with this Amendment, we take the Amendments in page 18, line 22, in page 34, line 14, in page 34, line 29, and in page 45, line 44.

Commander Galbraith: They are all connected with the same point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. They are all drafting Amendments, which seek to give a more precise description of the persons entitled to an interest in the land affected.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 18, line 22, leave out "his interests are," and insert:
he is entitled to an interest in land which is."—[Commander Galbraith.]

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 18, line 36 to leave out:
to which this subsection applies.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It may be for the convenience of the House if we take,

together with this Amendment, the Amendment in page 18, line 42, the Amendment in page 34, line 43, the Amendment in page 35, line 4, and the Amendment in page 73, line 23:

7.45 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: These Amendments are little more than drafting Amendments, designed to shorten and simplify the Bill. The phrase "previous apportionment" is used and defined in the same sense as in Clauses 14 and 31, and also in the new Clause:
Provision of information as to unexpended balance, &amp;c.
The simplest arrangement from a drafting point of view is to delete the definitions in Clauses 14 and 31 and to define the term once and for all in the interpretation Clause—Clause 72.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 18, line 42, leave out subsection (5).—[The Lord Advocate.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 16.—(EFFECT OF PAYMENTS ON CLAIM HOLDINGS.)

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 20, line 35, to leave out from "treated," to "into," in line 36, and to insert:
as having been divided immediately before the commencement of this Act.
This is a very technical Amendment dealing with valuation, and I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I attempted to explain the present position. Where compensation under Part I is payable in respect of only part of the land to which the claim holding relates, the claim holding is to be divided, and only that part of the claim holding is reduced by the amount of the compensation. That provision is to be treated as taking effect immediately after the act or event giving rise to the compensation. A claim holding may also be due to be divided under the Second Schedule, in which case the division must take place before it can be decided what payment may be due.
That is the present situation, and the effect of the Amendment is to prevent a possibility of a conflict between the two provisions by providing that the division of the claim holding is to be treated as having taken place immediately before the commencement of this Measure. That means, in effect, after Part I payments


have been made and, thus, after the provisions of the Second Schedule have taken place. The Amendment is clearly understandable by those whose business in life is to deal with the technical aspects of valuations, but it is not easy to explain in simple language. I have done the best I can.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 19.—(REDUCTION OR EXTINGUISHMENT OF BALANCE.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 22, line 32, to leave out from "an," to the end of line 7, on page 23, and to insert:
original unexpended balance of established development value, then, subject to the next following subsection, the land shall be taken to have that balance at any time after the commencement of this Act except in so far as that balance is by virtue of any provision of this Act to be treated as having been reduced or extinguished immediately before that time.
(2) Where any land taken as a whole has an original unexpended balance of established development value, but, at any time after the commencement of this Act, an act is done or an event occurs in relation to any area consisting of, or including part only of, that land in consequence of which, by virtue of any provision of this Act, an amount would fall to be deducted from the original unexpended balance of that part of that land for the purpose of determining the unexpended balance thereof at any subsequent time, then, without prejudice to the operation of the preceding subsection with respect to any part of the land taken separately, the land taken as a whole shall be treated as not having any such balance at that subsequent time.
(3) Where compensation under this Part of this Act becomes payable in respect of the depreciation of the value of an interest in land by a planning decision, then, for the purpose of determining whether that land or any part thereof has an unexpended balance of established development value at any subsequent time, the amount of the compensation shall be deducted from the original unexpended balance of established development value of that land and the orginal balance of that land or that part thereof shall be treated as having been reduced or extinguished accordingly immediately before that subsequent time.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It may be for the convenience of the House if we take, together with this Amendment, the Amendments in page 23, line 11, line 23, and line 36; in page 25, line 11, and in page 30, line 13.

The Lord Advocate: These Amendments arise from a defect in Clauses 19 and 36, which results in an incorrect balance being paid in certain cases. These cases are cases where part of the

land being compulsorily acquired has got a different compensation history from other parts of it.
Perhaps the easiest way of focusing the matter is for me to explain what the present position under the Bill as it stands is. Put very briefly, the defect in Clause 19 as it stands is that the Clause does not provide for the scaling down of the unexpended balance applicable to an area as a whole where part only of the land with the balance is affected by the event giving rise to the compensation payment. The result is that in certain circumstances, as the Bill stands, there may be over-payment.
This group of Amendments is designed to overcome that difficulty, and these Amendments will secure that the unexpended balance by reference to which compensation falls to be assessed itself will reflect at any subsequent time any reduction in the balance attached to part only of the area which had the original unexpended balance attached to it.
To achieve that result it is necessary to abandon the concept that land which no longer has a uniform compensation history because acts or events have affected part of it can continue to have an unexpended balance as a whole. We have to give up that concept or modify that concept. The Amendment provides that where for compensation purposes it has been necessary, because of some act or some event, to divide the land into a series of parts for the purpose of determining the unexpended balance attached to it each part is taken to have an unexpended balance at any subsequent time. The original area taken as a whole is to cease to be regarded as having a balance, and it is split among the parts. The total amount payable, if, for example, the original area were to be acquired by a public authority, would thus be directly ascertainable by reference to the aggregate of these individual balances.
We thus avoid the error which would result from the Clauses as they originally stood and achieve a result which I am satisfied the House will consider is an equitable result in relation to the various parties interested in the land as a whole. I agree the matter is technical and largely accounting, and, perhaps, not very clear, but I have done my best to explain the purpose and effect of this group of Amendments.

Mr. Bence: I find this very difficult indeed to understand. While the Lord Advocate was giving his exposition, I was visualising a piece of land of, perhaps, from three to four acres and which is not developed yet. I take it that the valuation is the valuation of the whole piece. Only one part of the land is suitable for economic building. If the piece is parcelled up, am I to understand, from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, that the valuation of the whole piece would be so treated that the valuation for the part of the land that is uneconomical for building, because, say, so much underpinning would be required, would be added to that of the part of the land that is good for building upon?
If that is so, then I think that it is very unjust. Of this piece of land there are, perhaps, two acres that can be built on out of three acres. There is a value of between £700 and £800 of unexpended balance on the whole area. If a part only of the land is to be developed, is it to be said that the whole £800 can be shifted from the whole of the area to one small part of it, leaving the other part with no unexpended balance at all?
I do not understand the technicalities of these things, but it is not sufficient for me for the Lord Advocate to say that this Amendment will prevent overpayment when a public authority acquires a piece of land, because in this circumstance the securing of a piece of the land and not all of it would still involve the value of the whole area, because its whole value is to be shifted on to the part of the land good for building. That would seem to me to involve overpaying. I should be glad if the Lord Advocate would explain to me exactly what he means when he says that the land is to be divided up. Is the valuation to be a varying valuation on each piece, or will it be equally divided, or will someone decide that the different pieces of the land shall have a different valuation?

The Lord Advocate: I quite agree that this matter is highly technical, but we are not in this group of Amendments or in this group of Clauses considering the allocation of the value of the land where part of it is suitable for, say, a factory and another part, because of drainage or some other reason, is of a little value. We are not concerned with that. What these Amendments are concerned with is the

unexpended balance in respect of a certain area of land which owing to its history has not been treated as one unit throughout, but part of it has received certain treatment and part of it has received another treatment in the way of acquisition or something of that kind.
Our purpose is to try to secure that each of the parts gets a fair share of the unexhausted balance and that there is not a payment made to each which together would amount to more than the unexpended balance of the whole. That is the purpose of this Amendment, to avoid that which would be a result of the Clause as it stands. I think the hon. Member can disabuse his mind altogether that it is any question of taking away value from a piece of an area, which is of value, and giving it to a useless area. It is not that at all.

Mr. Willis: I have been trying hard to follow this matter, and, like my hon. Friends, I find it extremely difficult. I wonder whether, when a Minister explains such a case as this to the House, it would be possible for him to give us some example of the type of thing he means. It would assist us in the intense intellectual effort required to understand this legal verbiage. It may be all right so far as it assists the right hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents, whom I have the honour myself to represent, but from the layman's point of view this is extremely difficult.
As I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman, what he is trying to do is to prevent the exploitation of a local authority by unscrupulous landowners who, through having received different amounts of compensation, or different amounts of development value, in respect of different pieces of a portion of land, may try to manipulate things to get a total larger than they should. Is that what these Amendments set out to do?

8.0 p.m.

Miss Herbison: My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has asked for definite information from the Lord Advocate. I thought it might be easier not only for hon. Members on this side of the House but for the one hon. Member on the Government back benches to understand the position if the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave


specific examples of what is contained in this Amendment. It seems to me—and I am sorry I have to go back to this again—that time and time again when dealing with this matter for the English and Welsh hon. Members, the then Attorney-General gave specific examples which greatly helped. My hon. Friend in a most courteous way asked for specific examples, and it is just to bad and is treating the House with the greatest discourtesy for the Lord Advocate to remain glued to the Front Bench.

The Lord Advocate: I will endeavour to give an example in the hope that it will make the matter clear. The difficulty of examples is that one has got to state so many facts that it is sometimes much more involved than if one explains what is the effect of the Clause. That is the reason I did not seek to use an example in the present case, but let me give an example of what this group of Amendments is supposed to achieve.
Suppose a piece of land had an unexpended balance of £1,000 spread evenly throughout the area. A quarter of that piece of land is built on, another quarter is sold, and a third quarter is refused planning permission. Each is given £250, and on that footing any deduction is made, for the quarter, from its £250. If that example makes it a little clearer then it is worth giving it, but, as I said, the whole purpose of this Amendment is to avoid any overpayment that there might otherwise be and to secure that the aggregate of the balances for parts of the unit, some of which may have nothing to expend, and which have been treated differently, shall not in future exceed the amount of the unexpended balance for the total area.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 23, line 11, leave out from "forty-eight," to end of line 15, and insert:
being land which has an original unexpended balance of established development value, then, for the purpose of determining whether that land or any part thereof has an unexpended balance of established development value at any subsequent time.
In line 23, leave out from "the," to end of line 26, and insert:
original unexpended balance of established development value of that land and the original balance of that land or that part thereof shall be treated as having been

reduced or extinguished accordingly immediately before that subsequent time.
In line 36, leave out from beginning, to "unexpended," in line 45, and insert:
(4) Where an act or event has occurred in relation to any land in consequence of which any of the provisions of this Act requires an amount to be deducted from the original unexpended balance of established development value of that land or any part thereof, there shall be attributed to the various parts of that land so much of that amount as might reasonably be expected to have been attributed thereto if the authority determining the amount had been required to apportion it between those parts in accordance with the same principles as applied to its determination; and where two or more such acts or events have occurred in relation to the same land, those provisions shall apply cumulatively, and the requisite deduction from the original.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 20.—(RIGHT TO COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF PLANNING DECISIONS.)

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 24, line 5, to leave out from beginning, to second "that," in line 11, and to insert:
at the time of that decision he is entitled to an interest in any land to which the decision relates which has an unexpended balance of established development value, and the value of that interest or, in the case of an interest extending to other land, the value of that interest in so far as it subsists in.
The purpose of this Amendment is to make clear that the title to compensation depends on the existence of an unexpended balance and also that the insertion of the words "at the time of that decision" which appear at the very beginning of the Amendment would ensure that only the owner of the interests at the time of the decision is entitled to a claim, and that no claim is possible by any other person who acquired the land after the decision was made. In the main, this is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 21.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION.)

Amendment made: In page 25, line 11, leave out from "following," to end of line 26, on page 26, and insert:
subsection, where a person is entitled to compensation under this Part of this Act in respect of the depreciation by a planning decision of the value of an interest in land to which the planning decision relates which at the time of that decision has an unexpended balance of established development value (in


this section referred to as 'qualified land'), the amount of the compensation shall be whichever is the less of the following amounts, that is to say—
(a) the amount by which the value of the interest, or in the case of an interest extending to other land, the amount by which the value of the interest in so far as it subsists in qualified land, is depreciated by the decision; or
(b) the amount of the unexpended balance of established development value immediately before the decision of the qualified land in which the interest subsists:
Provided that if compensation is payable under this Part of this Act in respect of two or more interests in the same qualified land by reason of the same planning decision and the aggregate amount of compensation payable apart from this proviso in respect of those interests exceeds the amount mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection, the amount so mentioned shall be allocated between those interests in proportion to the depreciation of the value of each of them respectively, and the amount of the compensation payable in respect of any of those interests shall be the sum so allocated to that interest.
(2) Where the land to which the planning decision relates, taken as a whole, does not satisfy the following conditions, that is to say—

(a) that the land is qualified land; and
(b) that every interest subsisting therein the value of which is depreciated by the decision subsists in the whole thereof,
then, for the purposes of assessing the compensation payable under this Part of this Act in respect of any interest subsisting in that land or any part thereof—

(i) the depreciation of the value of the interest by the planning decision shall first be ascertained with reference to the whole of the land to which the planning decision relates and in which that interest subsists;
(ii) the land to which the planning decision relates and in which that interest subsists shall then be treated as divided into as many parts as may be requisite to ensure that each such part consists of land which either satisfies the conditions aforesaid or is not qualified land; and
(iii) the depreciation of the value of the interest ascertained as aforesaid shall then be apportioned between the said parts according to the nature of those parts and the effect of the planning decision in relation to each of them,
and the amount of the compensation shall be the aggregate of the amounts which would be payable by virtue of the preceding subsection if the planning decision had been made separately with respect to each such part."—[Commander Galbraith.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 23.—(COMPENSATION EXCLUDED IN CERTAIN CASES.)

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 27, line 1, after "out," to insert:
for the purposes of the development.
This touches closely on an Amendment we discussed previously. The position here is that there is no express limitation on the kind of layout conditions which may be imposed to the exclusion of compensation. A fear was expressed when the Bill was published that compensation might be excluded if the conditions required, for example, that parking facilities or even an underground garage were to be provided on a scale unrelated to the purpose of the development.
Perhaps I should explain it more fully by suggesting that the development could be a picture house. It might be reasonable to say that those erecting the picture house had got to supply facilities for parking a reasonable number of cars but not for something that would approximate to a municipal car park. We have inserted here "the manner in which any land is to be laid out for the purpose of the development" so that no one can put on conditions and not pay compensation where the conditions are something quite unessential to the development. The conditions have got to be reasonable and for the purpose of the development.

Miss Herbison: I would say that we have had a better explanation this time, which I think greatly helps the House, and, I would thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for it. There is only one difficulty as I see it here. We are inserting the words
for the purposes of the development.
and the example has been given of a picture house and the layout for parking purposes. Other instances come to my mind, and what I should like to know is who is going to decide? Is it in the hands of the Secretary of State if there is some disagreement between the two bodies concerned as to what the purpose of the development should be?

Commander Galbraith: There is the right of appeal in this case.

Miss Herbison: That was the point I wanted to make perfectly clear, that an appeal would apply in this case.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 24.—(NO COMPENSATION IF OTHER COMPARABLE DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED.)

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 28, line 3, to leave out from "land," to end of line 39, and to insert:
if notwithstanding that refusal, there is available with respect to that land planning permission for development to which this section applies:
Provided that where such permission is available with respect to part only of the land, this section shall have effect only in so far as the interest subsists in that part.
(2) Where a claim for compensation under this Part of this Act is made in respect of an interest in any land, planning permission for development to which this section applies shall be taken for the purposes of this section to be available with respect to that land or a part thereof if, immediately before the Secretary of State gives notice of his determination in respect of that claim, there is in force with respect to that land or part a grant of, or an undertaking by the Secretary of State to grant, planning permission for some such development, subject to no conditions other than such as are mentioned in subsection (2) of the last preceding section.
(3) This section applies to any development of a residential, commercial or industrial character, being development which consists wholly or mainly of the construction of houses, flats, shop or office premises, or industrial buildings (including warehouses), or any combination thereof.
The object of this Amendment is to redraft the Clause in simpler and more effective form and to eliminate the Sixth Schedule which, as hon. Members will remember, dealt with classes of comparable buildings. The basic principle in the Clause is that compensation is to be excluded where development of a reasonably remunerative character is allowed. What is important is not the nature of the development for which planning permission is applied but the nature of the development allowed. On that basis the detailed list in the Sixth Schedule of the Bill can be abandoned and an indication given in general terms in the Clause itself of the sort of development regarded as reasonably remunerative. The Amendment is a simpler and more effective way of stating what is in the existing Clause.

Mr. T. Fraser: This new provision takes the place of a somewhat comparable provision in the Bill, and merely seeks to provide that no compensation shall be payable in respect of a piece of land where particular development has

been applied for if a reasonably remunerative alternative development takes place. Can he tell us how this will work, because, as I understand it, an intending developer with a piece of land which is available for development in respect of which there is a claim will seek planning permission to proceed with a particular development. The local authority will not normally suggest any alternative reasonably remunerative development. The local authority may well say, "No." I think that I am right in thinking that if the local authority refuses the intending developer permission to carry out his development, he becomes eligible for compensation.
If that is so, there would be nothing to prevent the developer at some other time seeking permission to go ahead with some alternative development on the same land, which might very well be acceptable to the local authority. Meanwhile, compensation would have been paid. It may be that there is a piece of land in my constituency in the town of Hamilton in respect of which the owner has made a claim and that someone wishes to build a cinema, public house, garage or engineering business on that piece of land. Under the provisions of the Bill, if the local authority refuses permission to go ahead with this development, the owner would be entitled to compensation under the restricted global sum.
I imagine that that person would not be prepared to submit an alternative proposal for a reasonably remunerative development of the land if by so doing he would be denying himself the compensation provided for under Clause 24 as now amended. Can the Joint Under-Secretary of State tell me whether I have got this right? I think that I have. I have understood the provisions of the Bill so far. I should think that it would be a very foolish developer who would rush to a local authority with an alternative plan for development of the land, knowing that, the plan already having been rejected, he was immediately qualifying for compensation. There would be nothing in the world to prevent him delaying any alternative solution until he had received compensation, and then nothing to prevent him from submitting a plan for development of the land.

8.15 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I think that the hon. Member is right to a certain extent. In cases, as he said, where permission is refused, normally a claim would arise. But this is a case where an alternative would probably be suggested by the local authority itself. A gentleman may come along and say, "I want to build a cinema." The local authority may say, "Permission for a cinema is refused, but if you want to build shops that is permissible." The hon. Member said that the local authority would not come along with an alternative, but there is another safeguard because the Secretary of State would receive a claim for compensation, and he would himself then indicate some alternative development.
The whole matter is on the principle that we really do not want things that are undesirable or things to be put in the wrong places. There is no reason why the owner of the land should receive compensation if, in fact, another development can take place which is not altogether unremunerative.

Mr. Willis: The Secretary of State cannot tell a person to develop his land; he can suggest but he cannot compel. My hon. Friend is suggesting that a person may say, "I will leave this," and meanwhile he draws compensation.

Commander Galbraith: No.

Mr. Willis: In other words, if he does not build something else which the Secretary of State says that he could do, then he will not receive compensation.

Commander Galbraith: No. The Secretary of State would suggest an alternative and say, "You have lodged a claim for compensation. In fact you can build whatever it may be, but you are not allowed to build that for which you have applied." No compensation arises if there is comparable development open to him.

Mr. T. Fraser: Suppose there is a case in my own constituency of Hamilton of giving a limited right to a person to carry on an open air market in his part of the town. This is, by way of appeal, allowed by the Secretary of State against the decision of the local authority. The local authority think that it is an inappropriate part of the town for a market, but

they would allow the land to be developed for shops. If the Secretary of State had said to this person, "You have power to erect shops," he could say, "Thank you, but I am not interested"—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member has put his question but he must not develop it into another speech.

Mr. Fraser: I am seeking to enable the Joint Under-Secretary to reply, because I think that this is rather an important point. I should have thought that if this person who owns the land is not permitted to carry on his open market and develop the land in that way and has not the wherewithal to build shops and no desire to build shops, he would be entitled to compensation. If not, why not?

Mr. Bence: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken about a local authority refusing development for certain activities on a given piece of land in the ownership of an individual or a group of individuals. He went on to say that if the owner of that land was dissatisfied with the terms of the planning authority, county council or local authority restricting development in particular things, the Secretary of State could override the authority or could suggest alternatives to what the planning authority had laid down.

Commander Galbraith: No.

Mr. Bence: I have another question to ask, but will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman answer that one first?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would be much more convenient if the hon. Member would finish his speech.

Mr. Bence: This is my other point. An engineer might acquire a piece of land, thinking that he might use it to build a small factory and start out on his own. Planning permission might be refused, although when the land was acquired it was scheduled for industrial purposes; the planning authority, as the result of negotiations, schedules the land for another purpose—say, a housing scheme. That has happened in my constituency.
A group of engineers acquired a piece of land, knowing that it was scheduled for industrial development. Now, when they


are in possession of it, the land is rescheduled for housing and they do not want it for this purpose, having bought it to build a factory. Will they be compensated, or are they to be compelled to sell either to the local authority or to a building contractor because the land is now scheduled for the building of houses, a purpose less remunerative than would have been its use or a factory for engineering products?
This is important, because large tracts of land are scheduled for industrial development and some of it is for sale. It will be a ticklish business, if a group of people acquire land in an area which is scheduled for industrial development, if at a future date the planning authority reschedules the land and those who bought it are frustrated in their purpose. Are they to be compensated? In my constituency, an area in Bearsden was scheduled for housing and three companies bought land for that purpose. Then the Coal Board decided to sink a pit, and the land cannot be built upon because no clearance certificate can be granted. The Coal Board cannot pay compensation. Who is to pay?
We have already had one tragedy through, I admit, land dealers exploiting a hardworking, innocent man. He bought a piece of land for £400 because he assumed that he could do certain things with it. But the planning authority would not let him do what he intended to do, and its value is only £65. The poor chap was swindled.
We are told that there will not be compensation in these cases. Will there be compensation under the Bill? These are the questions that practical people, using the land for either industrial or building purposes, want to have answered. Sometimes big companies are involved, but in one instance in my constituency a working man bought the land. He was living in a rented house and wanted one of his own, but now he cannot build. True, the land may be used for other remunerative purposes, but that is no use to him. He has a decent plot and he wants a house on it, but he cannot have one. Is he to be compensated by the planning authority because they have changed the purpose for which the land can be used, through no fault of his or, indeed, of theirs, but because the nation needs coal so badly and coking coal has

been found under that area, although there is plenty, I am told, in Lanarkshire if only the Coal Board looked for it.
I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will give an assurance that these people in Bearsden and Milngavie, who acquired land a couple of years ago when it was scheduled for housing but are now refused permission to build houses because they cannot get clearance certificates, will be compensated.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: This is most refreshing. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) is saying exactly the kind of things that, had be been present in Standing Committee upstairs, he would have heard many of us on this side saying about compensation under the Bill. Many of us think that the Bill does not go nearly far enough in the granting of compensation to owners of land who are adversely affected by planning decisions. On Clauses 23 and 24—and later we hope to do so on Clause 29—we have urged that alterations should be made and that when owners of land apply for planning permission for certain purposes and are refused, but are given planning permission for other purposes which do not interest them in the least—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is not anticipating his own Amendment, is he?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: No, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. My Amendment deals with a rather different point, as I hope to explain shortly. I rose merely to welcome the reinforcement that we have had from the other side of the House.
I beg hon. Members opposite not to misrepresent the unfortunate case of Mr. Pilgrim, who has been quoted in this debate and was referred to just now by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East; I know that he did not want to misrepresent the case, the facts in which were not at all what the hon. Member suggested. Mr. Pilgrim, who lived in Marlborough Road, Romford, in the county of Essex, owned a bungalow, which he had bought himself, with a mortgage upon it. He was continually annoyed by children playing on a vacant plot of ground adjoining his bungalow, and although he was not asked to buy the


adjoining plot of land he took steps to acquire it and paid £500—not £400—for it.

Mr. Manuel: Is this a lecture?

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Call it what you like. I do not mind at all if it is described as a lecture. I think that we want to be clear about our facts. It is no use building an argument upon facts which are incorrect. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East, talked about expropriators or speculators as if they forced this land upon the unfortunate man. I have great sympathy with this man and with people in that position, but do not let us misrepresent the case.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not know how far this case is relevant to the Amendment.

Mr. Bence: May I put it to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) that I do not want to exaggerate or misrepresent the case, but I was led to say what I did because of Press accusations that the situation was brought about because of legislation brought in by the previous Administration.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The effect was that this unfortunate man who had paid £500 for a plot of land had it acquired from him compulsorily for £65 with no possibility of claiming any more—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that we have pursued this case far enough. It does not come under this Amendment at any point.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I hope that my purpose is served in begging hon. Members opposite not to misrepresent this most unfortunate case.

Commander Galbraith: I was asked one or two questions to which, with permission, I will reply.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) thought that I was suggesting that the Secretary of State should override local authorities. That is not what happens. When a claim is lodged for compensation the Secretary of State suggests some other kind of development which would be reasonable. That is all.

Mr. Ross: That is not true. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman should know his own Bill.

Commander Galbraith: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can be correct.

Mr. Manuel: I think that here there is a point which needs to be cleared up. Surely when the plan for the area is first put forward it has to go to the Scottish Office. The Secretary of State has to endorse the county planning officer's agreed plan and to say if it needs amending and to agree the location of industries and other things. Surely it is true to say that in the ultimate sense the Secretary of State decides.

Mr. Ross: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman turn to Clause 29 (2) of the present Bill?

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) was talking about the development plan which paints the broad picture, which states that this area is for housing and that for industry—that kind of picture. It may well be that there is a proposal to put a great garage in the middle of the housing area, which would not be a right thing to do, and the local authority might say, "No." The person concerned might apply for compensation and the claim would go to the Secretary of State who would suggest an alternative form of development to fit in with the plan.
Then there was the speech of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) in relation to the position of the plan. In Part IV of the Bill there are provisions about what is to happen when planning permission is revoked. There are provisions as to the compensation payable. In the case about which he spoke, as I understand it in the burgh of Clydebank, there was a piece of land scheduled for industrial development and someone bought it. He was a very stupid person to buy a piece of land for certain development without ascertaining from the local authority if it would approve of the development he intended to carry out. There are all kinds of different development—

Mr. Bence: When the land was bought it was scheduled for industrial development. He found that out but it was taken off the schedule after the land was acquired.

Commander Galbraith: Even so, I think that anyone is rather stupid to buy land in these days of planning just on the broad picture of industrial development shown in the development plan and I suggest that an application to the local authority would not have been a bad idea. The hon. Gentleman asked if any compensation would be paid. The answer to that is, "No." The remedy in the case which he put to me is for the people to sell and to make the best of what for them has been a bad bargain.
The example put by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) is rather difficult to answer without knowing the exact circumstances. Perhaps he would have a word with me, because I should like to understand exactly the situation which he described.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 26.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO CALCULATION OF DEPRECIATION.)

Amendment made: In page 30, line 13, leave out from the beginning to end of line 23, on page 31.—(Commander Galbraith.)

Orders of the Day — Clause 29.—(REVIEW OF PLANNING DECISIONS WHERE COMPENSATION CLAIMED.)

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to move, in page 33, line 16, at the end, to insert:
(5) In giving any directions under this section, the Secretary of State shall have regard—

(a) to the provisions of the development plan for the area in which the land in question is situate so far as those provisions are material to the development of the land;
(b) to the local circumstances affecting the proposed development, including the use which prevails generally in the case of contiguous land; and
(c) to any other material considerations
This Clause is, as it were, the sequel to Clauses 23 and 24, which we have just discussed exhaustively. The picture is that the applicant for planning permission, having been refused it by the local authority, claims compensation, and his claim goes to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State then reviews the whole case and it is competent for him then to set aside the decision of the planning authority and to grant permission for some other kind of development which need not be in accordance with the

development plan, which may not be liked by the planning authority, and which certainly may not be asked for by the applicant.
My right hon. and gallant Friend said just now that the Secretary of State could suggest an alternative to fit in with the plan. As I understand Clause 29, there is nothing to say that the alternative suggestion made by the Secretary of State—made by him the subject of a direction—has to accord with the proposals of the development plan. Nor is it provided that it should accord with the character of the development of the district and with the general proposals of the development plan that we move the Amendment.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) asked that examples should be given when these cases were being canvassed. I tried hastily to think of an example. It may not be a good one, but I give it for what it is worth. Suppose I, as, it may be, an industrialist owning land in a Scottish burgh in which there is a plentiful water supply running along the edge of the town, desire to establish a paper mill in a position where use could be made of the plentiful water supply. The Secretary of State, from the papers sent to him, could say, "No, you cannot establish a paper mill there but you may establish a swimming bath instead." I do not want to establish a swimming bath. I am not interested in building a swimming bath. What I wanted to do was to use my own land for the purpose of my own business and to build a paper mill. The Secretary of State says, "No, you can develop the land by building a swimming pool on this clear water, and by doing that you are debarred from compensation."
Perhaps that is rather fanciful, but there are other examples. Suppose that I wanted to build a block of offices in the same burgh and was prevented from doing that and the Secretary of State said, "No, you must not do that but you can build a block of flats instead." It might well be that the planning authority abhored flats and would not have them in its burgh at any price; it might want houses, but not flats. I want to ensure that the alternative direction given by the Secretary of State shall be such as to accord with the wishes of the planning authority and the general proposals of the development plan.
If every case could be examined personally by the Secretary of State, particularly by the present Secretary of State, I should not have the slightest fear that matters would not be dealt with in a reasonable way, but everyone knows that these matters are decided not by the Secretary of State but by some official at St. Andrew's House. I have a great regard for civil servants, but I cannot believe that they are always right. I have never believed that the "gentleman in Whitehall" knows best, and I do not believe that the gentleman in St. Andrew's House knows best. I prefer the judgment of the local authorities.
At the moment all my local authorities and all my butchers want slaughterhouses in two burghs; but the gentlemen in St. Andrew's House say, "No, there are plenty of slaughterhouse facilities 18 miles away," thinking that they know better than the local authorities, but I am certain that they do not. That is the sort of thing I do not want. I want the local planning authorities to make the plans and determine what is to be in them. I move the Amendment with some sincerity of feeling.

Major W. J. Anstruther-Gray: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Ross: When the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) spoke earlier he talked about a "refreshing speech" which had come from the Opposition benches. He has been the only speaker from the Government back benches in spite of the interest shown by himself and others upstairs. However. I congratulate him upon the fact that when he did make his speech he made a good one. It was refreshing to hear him voice such sentiments.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I have just made my third speech today. I had hoped to make others, but my Amendments were ruled out of order.

Mr. Ross: That is a pity because the hon. Gentleman went to the aid of his right hon. and gallant Friend.
His right hon. and gallant Friend said, in dealing with another matter, that all that happens when a claim is made is that the Secretary of State makes an alternative suggestion. Clause 29 is much more pernicious. Under this Clause plan-

ning permission may be refused for some project, such as a cinema, industrial development or a block of flats, the local authority turning it down for good and sufficient reasons. The person seeking permission may then make a claim for compensation to the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State can make up his mind before consulting anyone. He can revoke the decision of the local planning authority and substitute a proposal of his own. It is not merely a question of a suitable alternative suggestion being made by the Secretary of State; he can alter the work of all the planning authorities in Scotland. The Clause contains nothing to limit him; it does not lay down any considerations for him when he makes up his mind about plans. I cannot improve upon the words in the hon. Member's Amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Surely it is not right that the Secretary of State for Scotland should allow financial considerations to override planning considerations. It is all very well to talk about planning considerations, perhaps in an area which the local authority is anxious to keep clear of industrial development, when someone wants to build a chemical factory right in the heart of a residential area, as he may well do, but, unless we have some such safeguard as that the Secretary of State before making any such decision, will have regard to the provisions of the development plan for the area or to the local circumstances affecting the proposed development area and any such material considerations, the situation will not be satisfactory to us.
We have heard so often from Ministers and from back benchers on the other side of the House that the man in Whitehall does not know best. I have heard even the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment making impassioned addresses telling us to trust the local authorities. Well, why not trust the local authorities here? Ayr Town Council decided that there should not be an open air "cheap jack" market just over the wall from the kirk, but the Secretary of State for Scotland decided otherwise. The right hon. Gentleman should know exactly what are the feelings of Ayr Town Council in this matter.
What I am afraid of is that the kind of consideration which will move the Secretary of State to action in approving the


original proposal will not be any consideration of planning. of the fitness of the proposed development for the area in which it is to take place, but purely and simply consideration of the amount of compensation to which he will leave himself open.
Decisions like this are decisions against the people, against the life of the people and against the way in which they live, and I am not at all satisfied that sufficient consideration has been given to this aspect of the matter. We shall return to this question in another Amendment. Both parties in this House, after the war, were very much concerned about what had happened before in regard to the haphazard growth of our towns and cities, and planning then came into its proper place. I am not in favour of putting planning on a pedestal, but I am very much against the smashing of all ideas of planning which might well come from the decision of the Secretary of State, and nothing that I have heard in the conduct of the debates on this Bill has satisfied me that hon. Gentlemen on the back benches opposite properly understand the considerations which are at stake here. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not withdraw his Amendment, but will take it to a Division.

Mr. Manuel: I hope that this matter will be looked at most carefully by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Most of us who have played a part in helping to arrive at the decisions of local authorities know of the painstaking care with which these authorities, and especially planning authorities, have got down to their job throughout all the local authority areas in Scotland. We should also remember that the Secretary of State has already endorsed the overall plan for the area.
I think that some form of protection is necessary. While the words of the Amendment may not be the best obtainable, at any rate they are a step in the right direction. The local authorities, who, after all, have had their overall plans endorsed by the Secretary of State, and who realise that these plans lay down broadly what can be accomplished by way of the location of industry—where shops can be built and where obnoxious trades must not be carried on—regard these overall plans as a sufficient guide to the local authority.
When the initial plan is put up to the Secretary of State he has the right to change the overall picture according to advice from his planning officers at St. Andrew's House, but the local authority may go on the assumption that the plan has been adopted because it is the overall plan. In their wisdom, they know that grudges and wrongs which may be committed may be put right at the next election. Apart from that election point, Parliament ought not to give a second opportunity to the Secretary of State, because a person may have influence of some kind to get his case looked at again. An appeal is all very well, but an appeal of this kind, after the initial plan has been endorsed, is not good.
We are continually hearing from the Government side, just as when we were the Government we were continually hearing it, that local authorities in Scotland ought to be given more power. I am all for giving local authorities more power, but when we are talking of local authorities in this connection we are referring not to the small authorities but to large areas in which county councils assume planning powers for the whole of their county areas. That is not a small thing. It is just too bad, after all we have heard in the past, especially from Ministers, about the need to preserve local authority powers, that we should be discussing this proposal.
One of the Joint Under-Secretaries of State blazed a trail up and down the county of Fife preaching that gospel, in which I ardently believe. It seems terrible that once an hon. Member assumes office he should leave his conscience behind. [Interruption.] I am reminded that the hon. Gentleman is in charge of fishing, but I do not think we ought to bring that point in.
I hope that the mover of the Amendment will stick to his guns. I may be even more in favour of his Amendment than he is, and I believe we must do something about it. I hope that he and the few of his hon. Friends who are in the Chamber will swell the vote on this occasion in favour of helping local authorities in Scotland.

Commander Galbraith: I am impressed by the respect which is being shown for local authorities. It is most refreshing and I hope that we shall hear more of it. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was a little to anxious about


what would happen. I think he knows perfectly well that no Secretary of State would use lightly his powers under Clause 29, and that before using them he would consult the local planning authority, which has a statutory right, under Clause 31, to be heard. My right hon. Friend does not differ from the local authorities except for good and convincing reasons. Of course, if there was such a thing as an unreasonable local authority, it might run my right hon. Friend into a good deal of money for compensation, and it is only right that he, if such a local authority behaved in that way, should be able to do something about it.
I would remind the House that during the Second Reading I informed hon. Members that my right hon. Friend had no intention of using his review powers for the purpose of scrutinising closely from the financial point of view decisions of planning authorities which gave rise to claims. I said that then, and that is the position which my right hon. Friend takes up now. On the other hand, he must, of course, have some powers.
Let us, first of all, get down to what is the present position. The Clause gives powers to the Secretary of State to review planning decisions which have given rise to claims for compensation, and to give directions substituting a more favourable decision than that given by the local authority in cases where my right hon. Friend would have made such a decision if the case had been referred to him in the first place—that is under Section 13 of the 1947 Act—and also the granting of planning permission for some purpose other than the development of the land in question.
The purpose of the Amendment is abundantly clear. It has been spoken of by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and other hon. Members opposite. Let me say straight away, that, in my view, the Amendment is quite unnecessary. It does no more than express what my right hon. Friend does already as a matter of course when applications are referred to him under Section 13 of the 1947 Act.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Does that mean that my right hon. and gallant Friend will accept my Amendment?

Commander Galbraith: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to continue a little further before coming to that conclusion.
If these provisions were not necessary under the 1947 Act, then there is very little need for them now. The Amendment would suggest that the Secretary of State was to be more restricted in his consideration of review cases than he is at present in dealing with land under the 1947 Act. Having said that and having made it abundantly clear that, in my opinion, this Amendment is quite unnecessary, I would add that in view of the great unanimity of feeling that has been evidenced on both sides of the House in this debate, which is something so refreshing, I really cannot do other than accept the Amendment in principle. The wording may need revising, but I accept it in principle.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw his Amendment?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: On the understanding that it is accepted in principle by Her Majesty's Government and that they will, on another occasion, put down an Amendment which will carry into effect this same principle and the same intention of my Amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. T. Fraser: I think that we should all like to be sure that the intention of this Amendment will be incorporated in words to be inserted in the Bill in another place. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland sought to show that the words were unnecessary. He said that if such a provision was unnecessary in the 1947 Act, it should not be necessary today. He caused us to wonder why, if the 1947 Act was such a perfect piece of legislation, we were having this Bill at all at this time.
However, we have the Bill before us, and we are discussing an Amendment which seeks to ensure that, in issuing a direction, the Secretary of State will take into account certain considerations. The Joint Under-Secretary said that the Secretary of State would, in any case, take those considerations into account. I do


not want to cause a disturbance at this time, but I doubt very much whether that is so.
In any case, we all think that the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman is a worth-while Amendment. It affords protection to local authorities. It is something to which all of us could point at any time when the Secretary of State gave a direction—or at the present time gives a decision, as he frequently does—against the wishes of the local authority. We should like to have this kind of protection. We appreciate that the hon. Gentleman's wording may not be acceptable to the Government and to the Parliamentary draftsmen, but before the House leaves this I should like the Joint Under-Secretary to make clear that it is the intention of the Government to find alternative words to implement the principle of the Amendment.

Commander Galbraith: That is exactly what I meant when I said that I accept the principle. That means that an Amendment, in suitable words, will be put down in another place.

Mr. T. Fraser: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Question is—

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: On a point of order. Leave was given to withdraw the Amendment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) rose to speak, so the Question must be put. I cannot allow it to be withdrawn now.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I understood that it was agreed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It was not agreed—an hon. Member rose to speak.

Mr. Fraser: I do not object to the withdrawal of the Amendment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I agree.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — Clause 30.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO REVIEW OF PLANNING DECISIONS).

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 33, line 18, to leave out from "shall," to the end of line 26, and to insert:
if so required by the local planning authority to whose decision the direction relates or by

any person who made, and has not since withdrawn, a claim in respect of that decision, afford an opportunity for that authority or person to appear before, and be heard by, a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.
This Amendment has been put down in view of the undertaking I gave in Committee that the Government would consider whether Clause 30 could be so amended as to allow owners to be heard. I have considered the matter and I am glad to say that we can make provision for this. This Amendment is designed to achieve that object.

Mr. Ross: I think this is not quite exactly as the Lord Advocate says. Clause 30 provided that in his directions the Secretary of State was to make modifications, but the point is whether the Secretary of State in his directions is merely going to over-ride altogether the decision of the local planning authority. This Amendment makes it possible for the Secretary of State for Scotland, before he actually makes his direction to call in the planning authority and allow it to be heard by some person whom he shall appoint.
Instead of that, if he decides that he is going to over-rule the decision of the local authority, he is also going to invite the person in whose favour he has decided. I am not sure that that is right. I think he is loading the dice against the local authority. One should bear in mind that the Secretary of State would not be appointing this person to hear the case if he had not already made up his mind to turn down the local authority's case. Therefore, in effect he is himself the advocate for the applicant.
I appreciate that if there were suggested a modification of the applicant's plan, then certainly the applicant should be there, because, as has already been said, it may be that the modification suggested does not fit in at all with the ideas of the applicant. But I am not at all satisfied that it is an improvement or is just to the local authorities that when the Secretary of State reconsiders the plan he should be faced not only with the local authority but also with the applicant. I should like to hear reasons why this change should be made. It is not enough to say that that is what the Amendment does. Why make such a change?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Since it was in response to a request that I made in Committee, I should like to say that I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for introducing this Amendment. The reason I asked for it and the reason I support it now is this. If the Secretary of State called into consultation only one party to the transaction—in this case it would be the local authority—it would give the impression outside that the matter was being decided in the absence of one of the interested parties, whether he is the owner of the land or the applicant for planning permission. I think we ought to make it quite clear that justice is not being dispensed behind closed doors. I felt that if the local authority was to be called into consultation, then the other party, the owner of the land or the applicant for planning permission, should have a right to be heard. I urged that point in Committee; it has been granted now, and I am grateful on that account.

Mr. Hoy: But does this Amendment not go much further? Does it not now exclude the applicant altogether?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Mr. Thornton-Kemsleyindicated assent.

The Lord Advocate: The Lord Advocateindicated dissent.

Mr. Hoy: Apparently what I say has the agreement of the hon. Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) and the disagreement of the Lord Advocate.

The Lord Advocate: I am perfectly clear that if the applicant has an interest in the land he will be a claimant and will have a right as such to be heard. The purpose of this Amendment is to give people who might be financially affected by a change in the compensation situation a right to be heard. It seems only proper that if people's rights to the fund are going to be affected, they should have an opportunity to be heard. It was to secure that situation that this Amendment was put down.

Mr. Hoy: May I ask the Lord Advocate to look at this matter again? I have considered it very carefully, and my opinion is that it reverses the Clause as it originally appeared. In fact, it leaves the applicant, if he is not also the owner, altogether outwith the case. Only the owner now has the full right in the initial

stages. If that is the correct interpretation, I suggest that when considering Amendments to be introduced in another place, the right hon. and learned Gentleman might look at this question and consider whether what I have said is not correct.

The Lord Advocate: I shall certainly have another look at it, and if it deprives people of an existing right, under the Bill, to make representations or to be heard, we shall certainly have to make some change.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Would not I be right in saying that applicants' rights are fully reserved and can be exercised when there is a question of appeal, but that under the Amendment the applicant has no right to be heard although the owner of the land is given that right?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must not make a second speech.

Amendment agreed to.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 33, line 30, to leave out "to the applicant."
The present position is that where the Secretary of State gives a direction either substituting a more favourable planning decision for that of the local planning authority or grants permission for some other development, he is required to give notice of the direction to the applicant for the original planning permission as well as to the local planning authority and to the claimants for compensation. The Amendment simply removes the requirement to notify the applicant.
The purpose of the notice is to enable claimants to consider—in the light of the new compensation situation created by the Minister's direction—whether to maintain, withdraw or modify their claims. It is not intended for the applicant; it is intended only for the claimants, so that they may have an opportunity to maintain, modify or withdraw their claims. The applicant has no interest in the question, unless he also has an interest in the land, when he will presumably have claimed compensation and will, therefore, receive a notice of the direction in his status as claimant. The purpose of the Amendment is simply to speed up the procedure as much as we can. I do not think it is necessary that an applicant should he informed.

Mr. D. Johnston: I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to look at this question again, in view of what the Lord Advocate said during the discussion on the previous Amendment. As I understood the Lord Advocate, it was his intention to look at the Amendment we have made to Clause 30 (1) to see whether it included the applicant. If we now make this deletion from subsection (2) it will mean that it will be quite useless to have another look at subsection (1). Clause 30 (2) must follow on Clause 30 (1).
9.15 p.m.
It is clear that when the Government originally drafted this Clause they intended that the applicant should be a party to the claim. Is there any reason why the applicant should not be a party now? I can well understand the owner of the claim being a party. Is there any reason why the applicant should not be a party to the proceedings as well, and should not have the notice of the application and of the decision of the Secretary of State? I do ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to look at this again. If he does not, I am sure he will not give effect to what I understood was the intention of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) when he moved an Amendment which was accepted in spirit by the Government.

Commander Galbraith: With permission to speak again, I would thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has said. I have taken consideration of what my right hon. and learned Friend said in relation to the last Amendment, and I will have a look at this again.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 31.—(DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION.)

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 34, line 14, to leave out from "and," to "substantially," in line 19, and to insert:
if his determination includes an apportionment, to give particulars of the apportionment to any other person entitled to an interest in land which it appears to the Secretary of State is.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think that this Amendment goes with the Amendment to

be proposed to page 34, line 29, to leave out "his interests are," and to insert:
he is entitled to an interest in land which is.

Commander Galbraith: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The Amendment I am moving is similar to the Amendment we have already made in page 18, line 4, to Clause 14. This Amendment, and the related one to which you have referred, are drafting Amendments parallel to those to Clause 14 and others with which we have already dealt.

Amendment agreed to.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 34, line 27, to leave out "the claimant or."
This is a drafting Amendment purely. It reduces procedure. The claim holder gets notice of determination, which includes the apportionment, and which he can dispute. This is merely a duplication of something he has already got, and it is, therefore, of no moment here and should be removed from the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 34, line 29, leave out "his interests are," and insert:
he is entitled to an interest in land which is."—[Commander Galbraith.]

In line 43, leave out "to which this subsection applies."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Amendment proposed: In page 35, line 4, leave out subsection (4).—[The Lord Advocate.]

Mr. Hoy: Can we have an assurance that this Amendment is no more than a drafting Amendment?

The Lord Advocate: It is one of a group with which we previously dealt, and the argument for which, already presented, covers this Amendment among the other ones.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 34.—(RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION ON SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT.)

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 36, line 32, to leave out from "development," to the first "in." in line 36, and to insert:
(a) to which section twenty-four of this Act applies; or
(b) which consists in the winning and working of minerals; or


(c) to which, having regard to the probable value of the development, it is in the opinion of the Secretary of State reasonable that this section should apply;
Provided that—

(i) this section shall not apply to any development by virtue of paragraph (c) of this subsection if, on an application made to him for the purpose, the Secretary of State has certified that, having regard to the probable value of the development, it is not in his opinion reasonable that this section should apply thereto; and
(ii).
The Clause says:
No person shall initiate any new development to which this section applies…until such amount…as is recoverable…has been paid or secured to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State.
That is in subsection (1). Subsection (2) says:
This section applies to any new development"—
and then come the words the Amendment inserts after the deletion the Amendment makes.
The new development refers to
section twenty-four of this Act
which hon. Members will remember replaces the Sixth Schedule, which concerns the winning and working of minerals. It then adds:
having regard to the probable value of the development, it is in the opinion of the Secretary of State reasonable that this section should apply.
If the value of it were high it would be wrong not to require the repayment of the compensation that has been paid.
Then there is a proviso which follows on that and which merely says that where a developer wishes to undertake an unusual standard of development he can ask the Secretary of State if he will be required to repay the compensation. If the Secretary of State certifies that that is unreasonable then there need be no repayment. That merely has to do with the question of compensation and subsequent development.

Mr. Woodburn: Perhaps we can get a little more clarification. I want to be quite clear what we are dealing with. If the compensation has been paid, I take it that this is a definition of the conditions under which the Secretary of State will be entitled to ask for the recovery of the compensation, and the next Amendment

we are going to discuss takes another point of view, that the Secretary of State may waive his right in certain circumstances. But why should there be two such waivings? This proviso also enables the Secretary of State to waive his right to recover compensation. That, of course, might refer to quite a different matter, and perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will clear up the point so that we do not confuse the two issues.

Commander Galbraith: In a way they are complementary. The proviso in this Amendment is concerned with something that is unusual and out of the ordinary. In the subsequent Amendment we are dealing with a normal case. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that they would appear to be really the same thing, but I am told they are different. It is right that they should both be in.

Mr. T. Fraser: I wonder if the Joint Under-Secretary of State would keep me right here? It is laid down in this Amendment that this will apply to the subject to which Clause 24 of the Bill applies. When we debated Clause 24 we found that it was a question of the Secretary of State suggesting that some alternative development should take place and compensation would not be paid if it were reasonably remunerative. It will be recalled that I said that surely it would be practicable for the intending developer to claim compensation if he were refused permission to go ahead with the development, but the Joint Under-Secretary said it would not be practicable at all.
Am I right now in thinking that this Amendment ensures that where a developer has done what I said he would do, namely, apply for permission and is refused, then if he had a claim outstanding in respect of the land he would claim his compensation? Further, does this Amendment provide for the Secretary of State to recover in part the claim? Is that the purpose of the Amendment?

Commander Galbraith: No, Sir. The compensation is recoverable after it is paid, and then, if a better and more comparable development is allowed, a repayment is asked for. It may be that there is a development of a football field and the Secretary of State waived some of the compensation payable. Then, if a building went on to the football field, naturally the Secretary of State would require the compensation to be repaid.

Mr. T. Fraser: Why should the compensation be paid?

Commander Galbraith: The compensation would be waived and then it would be paid if a better development took place.

Mr. Fraser: It is the other way round. It is the recovery of compensation not payment of compensation.

Commander Galbraith: It is the recovery of compensation where it has been paid.

Mr. Willis: It seems to me that this part of the Bill places enormous power in the hands of the Secretary of State. I should have thought that, if it were possible, it would have been much better for these decisions to be made by someone or some tribunal other than the Secretary of State. This seems to me to be placing very great power in the hands of the Secretary of State. He can refuse permission to provide compensation and try to bribe people to develop. He can do almost anything that he likes under this Bill. I think that it is quite wrong that this very important power should be given to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Pryde: In the Amendment we read:
which consists in the winning and the working of minerals.
Can the Joint Under-Secretary of State give an explanation of how this affects the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act and the operations of the Coal Board?

Amendment agreed to.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 37, line 10, at the end, to insert:
(4) Where, in the case of any land in respect of which a compensation notice has been recorded, the Secretary of State is satisfied that, having regard to the probable value of any proper development of that land, no such development is likely to be carried out unless he exercises his powers under this subsection, he may, in the case of any particular development for which planning permission has been granted, remit the whole or part of any amount otherwise recoverable under this section.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that this Amendment and the following three Amendments in the name of the Secretary of State go together.

Commander Galbraith: These Amendments are merely complementary to the previous Amendment. The purpose of

this Amendment is to permit the Secretary of State to waive recovery in whole or in part where the value of the proper development of the land is low compared with the recovery payment.
Cases may arise where planning permission has been refused on land with a high development value and substantial compensation paid, and where later on, because of some change in the plan or circumstances, it becomes proper for the land to be used for some less valuable development, say, a limited number of houses, or it may be a playing field, as I suggested a moment ago. Under the Bill as it stands, the full compensation paid would have to be repaid before the land could be put to that use. Repayment would operate like a heavy development charge which the Secretary of State had no power to waive, and the desire for development may well be frustrated. That of course, would be bad planning. It is obvious that it would be bad planning because the land would not be developed as it ought to be, and the intending developer would be driven to seek other land, possibly not so satisfactory, from the planning point of view, where little or no compensation would be required.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Hoy: As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says, where the land has this development value there might be a waiver by the Secretary of State if the planning needs of an area show that a particular plot should be used as a sports field or for a similar purpose. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, however, did not say that this provision goes rather further, and that where the Secretary of State waives payment for that purpose he retains the right to reimpose a development charge if the land is used for something other than a sports ground.
It would be interesting to know exactly what is meant, because it is not usual for sports grounds to be turned into housing sites; I have never known it happen. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes."] I see that this will provoke discussion and that the Amendment might not go through as easily as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman thought. I do not know of football fields of any size being turned into housing sites. As one of my hon. Friends suggested, claims were made


against a golf course for that purpose, and I remember the case in question. All I am pointing out is that while the Secretary of State is being given power to waive payment for one purpose, he is also given the right to reimpose the charge should there be a change in the use of the land.

Mr. Woodburn: I listened to the explanation by the Joint Under-Secretary but it did not convey very much to me. Perhaps if I suggest a simple illustration, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will say whether it is correct. There have been builders who, after building their housing schemes, have been left with a patch of ground that could not be built upon without building more than the normal number of houses to the acre and who have generously handed over the land as a park to the local authority.
Suppose that the builders had not done that, and the local authority had said, "You cannot develop that ground, because it must be kept as an open space," and the builders had claimed compensation for being denied the possibility of developing, say, a factory or something else on that open space. In that case, they would be paid compensation.
If, however, the builders then proposed to develop the land as a sports ground or golf course or something of that nature, it would appear that without the Amendment the Secretary of State would be able to claim recovery of the compensation that had been paid to them. But in view of the fact that the land was to be developed only as a golf course, and, therefore, was not of high development value, the Secretary of State, I gather, would be entitled to waive recovery.
On the other hand, after the Secretary of State had given the waiver, the builders might decide to go ahead with building a factory, and a newly-appointed local authority might grant permission to do so. I take it that in that event the Secretary of State would be able to call for recovery of compensation. I do not know whether that is what would happen. I have been trying to wade my way through the technical language used by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in his explanation. If my illustration is incorrect, can he put it into simple and clear language that we can follow?

Commander Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman has got it absolutely clear, and I am sorry that I did not make it as clear to him as he has made it to me.

Mr. Lawson: Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could clear up some of my doubts. I understood that there was one thing which was fixed and that was the amount of development compensation payable; that a sum was fixed in 1948 and that at no time was this to be altered. I understood that it was to be quite inelastic. From the previous Amendment it would seem that there is a possibility that development might take place in excess of the devevlopment value placed upon the land, that is to say, that there would be an opportunity for the Exchequer or the Central Land Board to recover money paid because development had been carried out in excess of the valuation placed on the land. This Clause seems to permit an alteration in the development value from a higher to a lower figure.
I am concerned about this when it comes to a question of compulsory purchase. I understood the position was that the authority making such a purchase would buy at existing use value plus the unexpended balance. The claim for compensation might have been reduced by certain development. I understood that the claim was originally a fixed amount. Now it seems that this claim is itself elastic. If so, might not a local authority making a compulsory purchase find itself confronted with a demand for development value for a particular piece of land greater than was placed on it in 1948? If we have an example of a variation in development value here, what is to hinder a possible seller of a piece of land from asking much more development value than was put on the land in 1948?

Mr. T. Fraser: I think that the language used in the Amendment is hardly sufficient. We are still discussing a piece of land intended to be put to one use at one time and where the local planning authority, supported by the Secretary of State, was unable to permit the land to be used for that purpose; where compensation was paid and now the land has been put to another use. There is provision in this Clause for the Central Land Board to recover a part or the whole of the compensation that was paid as the land is developed.
As I understand it, the Joint Under-Secretary of State has put to us a fair proposition. May I use my own example to put the picture before the House? A piece of land might well have been acquired for the purpose of a considerable industrial undertaking. Ultimately the local planning authority could not give permission for this work to proceed and the Secretary of State, having supported the local authority, had to authorise compensation to be paid in respect of that land. It might well be land which the local planning authority wished to be used for recreational purposes. I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned a football field or something of that kind.
If it is proposed to use the land for recreational purposes in the form of a sports field, I think that the Joint Under-Secretary wishes to have power under the Amendment to waive recovery of the compensation which he would otherwise be entitled to seek under the Clause. However, it seems to me that the language is inadequate and too loose. The Joint Under-Secretary in defending the Clause said that if the Secretary of State was not able to waive recovery of compensation, in whole or in part, in certain circumstances the recovery would have the same effect as would a heavy development charge upon the subject.
I think that I take the Joint Under-Secretary with me so far. The person developing would require to remit to the authority the compensation that had been paid in respect of the land when earlier planning permission for a development was refused. Will not recovery always be regarded by the developer as a kind of development charge? So long as the developer or the owner of the land is asked to refund part of the compensation paid, he will regard it as something like a development charge.
Is not it necessary, in providing for the waiving of part of the recovery of compensation, to have a fuller provision made by Statute? Are not we leaving much too much to the Secretary of State who will be subject to all kinds of pressure? One can fully understand that if a local authority were acquiring the piece of land which was originally intended for industrial purposes to use it for the provision of playing fields for the community, they would not be making any profit out

of the land. On the other hand, the local planning authority might permit the land to be used as a great sports stadium, which might very well be a most profitable undertaking for somebody.
Will not the Secretary of State be in a position, under the Amendment, to decide favourably in the case of the local authority developing the ground for recreational purposes and will he not be able to put the hammer on the company which proposes to develop the same land for sports purposes? I should think that the Secretary of State would be obliged to afford himself some protection against the accusation that he was imposing a development charge unjustly on a group of people who said that they were providing sports facilities for the good of the community and it would be purely incidental if they were to make some profit out of the development.
One can sympathise with the purpose which the Joint Under-Secretary said the Government had in mind when drafting the Amendment, but I think that the Secretary of State ought to protect himself and his successors—especially his successors—by statute. There is no doubt that if a Secretary of State refuses to waive the recovery of compensation in any case and the sum of money is considerable and the intending developer regards it as a development charge, he will go to his Member of Parliament and the Member of Parliament will go to the Secretary of State. What can the Secretary of State offer in defence of his decision?
He can offer only the words of the Amendment and I submit that they are no defence at all for the Secretary of State. He will be accused of imposing an unfair burden on the intending developer if he does not agree to waive the recovery of the whole of the compensation paid.
I wonder whether the Joint Under-Secretary has followed my train of thought and agrees that it is highly desirable that further protection should be provided by statute for the Secretary of State?

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has stated very clearly the point which I tried to make on an earlier


Amendment, that very great powers are being placed in the hands of the Secretary of State. A short time ago there was great excitement about the unanimity between both sides of the House because the Secretary of State was over-ruling a local authority in deciding what should be the plan for certain districts.
The Amendment strengthens the Secretary of State's powers because he will exercise a very important influence upon the developments which are to be permitted on land for which a compensation certificate is held by virtue of the fact that an indication can be given to a person that for a certain type of development there will be a 100 per cent. waiver and for another 50 per cent. That power will influence the type of development taking place on the land in question. I should have thought that the Secretary of State would have been anxious to protect himself against the influences which will be brought to bear upon him relating to the amount of waiver to be allowed.
For the reasons which united the House a short time ago—the desire not to allow the Secretary of State to have too much influence over planning decisions—and because of the need to divorce the Secretary of State from these financial matters, I ask the Secretary of State to look at the Amendment again with a view to providing some safeguards.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I submit that the words which are now the subject of controversy are unnecessary, and I hope that the Government will not insist upon them.
Subsection (3, a) provides for the amount which is recoverable in certain cases, stating that it shall be the amount of compensation specified in the notice. Paragraph (b) says that it shall be so much of the amount of the compensation specified in the notice which is attributable to the land comprised in the notice. Subsection (4) states what is not recoverable; it says that no amount shall be recoverable under the Clause in respect of the compensation, in so far as it is attributable to the land, in connection with any subsequent development thereof.
If, as indicated in subsection (4), an amount is not recoverable, what is the

necessity for the Amendment, which says that it shall not be recoverable:
…then, except where, and to the extent that, payment of that amount has been remitted under the last preceding subsection.
The two subsections to which I have referred clearly indicate what is recoverable and what is not recoverable, and now the Amendment tautologically seeks to insert words to repeat that which is already the meaning of subsection (4).
I hope the Government will not clutter up this already complex Bill with unnecessary Amendments of this sort, but will accept the view which I have expressed and withdraw the Amendment.

Commander Galbraith: With permission, I will reply to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), who asked me a number of questions. He referred to compulsory purchase, which, of course, is always on the basis of existing use value, plus the balance of the claim. The hon. Gentleman also asked me if the amount of the payment for development value compensation was a fixed amount, and the answer to that is "Yes; as a ceiling, it is a fixed amount." The development value at current prices may exceed that, but the compensation will never exceed the ceiling.

Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman says that the development value may exceed that figure. How is that?

Commander Galbraith: If the hon. Gentleman will think about it, he will see that the development value may be greater than the ceiling.

Mr. Lawson: Then the person concerned would receive more money than the ceiling fixed?

Commander Galbraith: No; I said that the ceiling is the limit, and that we would never exceed the ceiling.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) stressed a number of points in relation to the waiver, and thought it might be considered as a heavy development charge. I can quite see the dangers, but, at the same time, it seems to me to be right that the Secretary of State should have this particular power. In the ordinary case, it will be an amount acceptable in relation to the development which is proposed. The sports stadium, of which the hon. Gentleman talked, would be something almost of a commercial nature,


and in a case like that there would be no question of waiving repayment. In the case of a big area like that, it would be a valuable development. It would not be of low value, but would have a very great value.

Mr. T. Fraser: If the land had been previously scheduled for industrial development, would not the compensation be very high and the value of the land for a sports stadium be low by comparison? Would it not be necessary to waive part of the recovery when development took place?

Commander Galbraith: I do not think a great stadium of that nature could be considered for a waiver. It would have to be something of really low value, whereas a stadium of that kind would have a great value. There must be a discretion here, and it would be extremely difficult to specify the cases in which the waver ought or ought not to be exercised. My right hon. Friend has looked at this very carefully, and I think it will be all right. I sincerely hope so.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 37, line 13, after "notice," insert:
then, except where, and to the extent that, payment of that amount has been remitted under the last preceding subsection.

In page 38, line 10, after "relates," insert:
and, in the case of any notice of the fact that part only of any such amount has been so paid, stating whether the balance has been secured to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State or has been remitted by him under subsection (4) of this section.

In line 16, after "time," insert:
except where, and to the extent that, payment of that amount has been remitted under subsection (4) of this section."—[Mr. J. Stuart.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 36.—(COMPENSATION TO INCLUDE UNEXPENDED BALANCE OF ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT VALUE.)

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 39, line 28, to leave out from "time" to the end of line 30.
This Amendment is consequential on our recommital Amendment to Clause 18, in page 22, line 21. That was the Amendment under which the one-seventh became part of the unexpended balance.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 38.—(PROTECTION FOR PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS.)

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 41, line 41, after "writing," to insert:
in the manner prescribed by regulations issued by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The purpose of the Amendments and my Amendment in line 45 is simple. Clause 38 is designed to protect prospective purchasers, and it is the duty under that Clause of the local planning authority, on application made in writing, to give notice to the applicant whether the authority proposes to buy land or acquire any interest in the land, or has been notified by a public authority that it intends to do so.
The local authority in which my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) is interested has expressed concern at the looseness of the Clause, feeling that it should be much more specific as to the nature of the application to be made in writing and as to the notification to be given by public authorities to the local authority of interest in the land. The experience of this local authority is that very few purchasers of land are able to specify the land with any degree of accuracy and that conversations take place on the telephone affecting these matters. They feel that applications or conversations of this character should not be sufficient.
In view of the duty imposed upon the local authority by the Clause, it feels that the local authority should be safeguarded by more specific differences being made to what those duties should be. I do not think that the wording of these Amendments is necessarily very good, but the intention of them is worth while in the interests of the local authorities.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I beg to second the Amendment.
The question here is whether the procedure should be regularised by regulations so that all parties concerned shall know exactly where they stand. It is right that everyone interested in land should find the procedure cut and dried.

Commander Galbraith: The present position under the Clause, as it is proposed to amend it later, is that anyone thinking of buying land may, for his own protection, ask the town-planning


authority whether it or any other public authority proposes to buy the land in the ensuing five years. The Amendment to which I refer is in page 41, line 43. It is the next but one Amendment on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Willis: The Secretary of State's Amendment?

10.0 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: Yes. That is the position, taking that Amendment into account. I am sorry to say to the hon. Gentleman that the Amendment appears to be unnecessary. The reason I say that is that, normally, a man will clearly state the land in which he is interested. If he does not, the local planning authority can ask him for full particulars and can send him a form to fill up made out to suit their own requirements. If desirable, the Secretary of State can issue a model form to the local authority. There is no need for the heavy stick.
There is the further Amendment in the name of the hon. Gentleman, and the reason I feel that I must reject that is that the regulations are neither necessary nor desirable to ensure that local authorities give an accurate answer. Generally speaking, their answer will be a straight "Yes" or a straight "No." If only part of the land is to be acquired, they can be trusted to designate the part concerned. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but, for the reasons I have given, I cannot accept the Amendments.

Mr. Willis: I am quite willing to accept the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's rather harsh words about the wording of the Amendment, but, as I have said, the experience of local authorities proves that it does not operate quite so simply as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has suggested. Will he not have another look at, this to see whether it can be tightened up a little more in order to assist the local authorities and to protect prospective purchasers?

Commander Galbraith: I really think it is all right as it is.

Mr. D. Johnston: May I suggest a compromise between the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis)? It is that the word "written" should be inserted between "to give"

and "notice." I can see my hon. Friend's point, which is this. It will be suggested, no doubt in good faith, by some applicant or prospective purchaser that the local authority has given him to understand over the telephone or in conversation that they are not interested in planning for the next five years. That person will go away and will complete his purchase, and then, within a couple of years, a compulsory purchase power will be exercised and the purchaser will feel aggrieved. Indeed, I think that both parties will feel aggrieved.
I suggest that that could all be avoided if it were made obligatory for local authorities to give a written notice and that such a solution is worth looking at during the next stage of the Bill.

Commander Galbraith: Section 101 of the principal Act lays it down that it must be in writing.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. J. Stuart: I beg to move, "That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned."
I am very grateful to hon. Members for the manner in which they have handled the Bill during Report, and I regret that there were so many Amendments, and that they were so complicated. The House will realise that I have not taken a very vociferous part in the debate because, like some other hon. Members, I find considerable difficulty in mastering some of the points. At any rate, I wish to express my sincere gratitude for the very helpful attitude which hon. Members have displayed throughout the debate.
There is only one other thing I must say in moving this Motion and that is that I have moved it after discussions through the usual channels and on the understanding, to which I hope the House will agree, that we should complete consideration of the Bill tomorrow by about 7 p.m., or by 7.30 p.m. if it should be found that a little extra time is necessary.

Mr. Woodburn: I agree with the Secretary of State that we have made considerable progress. I think I should make it clear that never at any time during the Bill has there been on the part of the Opposition the slightest intention of filibustering, nor have we done so. We have only asked that there should be reasonable opportunity for the Bill to be made


clear to ourselves and, through us, to the general public. My hon. Friends have done a considerable amount today in trying to get such explanations as have been thought necessary.
We know, of course, that some of these matters have been explained in the English Bill. That is not necessarily an explanation to the Scottish people, because we know that news in England is not always regarded as news in Scotland, nor is news in Scotland regarded as such in England in every case. It is necessary, therefore, that the House should deal with its business in regard to Scottish Bills in a thorough fashion and my hon. Friends have been trying to carry out their duties as hon. Members of the House.
In response to the Secretary of State, I think that my hon. Friends will not see any difficulty in complying with arrangements, made through the usual channels, for the termination of the remaining part of the Bill tomorrow. I hope that we shall make that progress. Part of the progress made this evening is due to the fact that at an early stage both the Secretary of State and the learned Lord Advocate found that it was much quicker to make a proper explanation than to try to push off hon. Members with a shorter one. Having learnt that early on, much quicker progress was made. I think it is a rule of the House that courtesy leads to results.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), to be further considered Tomorrow.

ROAD SAFETY MEASURES

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]

10.8 p.m.

Mr. William Keenan: I have waited a long time for this opportunity, and I wish to start by giving figures in regard to what appears to myself and many others to be a failure in much of our road safety work. In certain categories the figures for the last two years give a clear indication of the tragedies which have taken place. In 1952 there were 4,706 deaths on the road, of which 786 were of children under 15 years of age. In 1953 the number had increased to 5,090, the number relating

to children under 15 being 797. Many of us feel very strongly that it should be described more as murder rather than death on the roads. In 1952 there were only 68 charges of manslaughter, and in 1953 only 39. Total accidents of all kinds on the roads in 1952 amounted to 208,012, of which 40,927 involved children under 15. In 1953 the total number of accidents had risen to 226,770, and 44,246 were to children under 15.
These statistics are supplied in official documents, and the Parliamentary Secretary has brought me up to date by letting me have an early copy of the 1953 figures, which are not yet in print. These figures disclose that in 1952 charges of dangerous driving numbered 4,846 and charges of careless driving numbered 29,773. In 1953 the figures for dangerous and reckless driving had risen to 5,255 and careless driving 32,061. In 1952 charges of driving or being in charge of motor vehicles while under the influence of drink numbered 3,150 and in 1953 3,258.
In spite of all our safety precautions, tragedies on the roads occur every night of the week. Nearly 12 months ago I mentioned that after 10 o'clock at night the accident and death rate increases. While I am now speaking, between the hours of 10 and 11, drunken drivers of motor cars will leave the public houses and will cause more accidents. My assertion is based upon statistics for the last two years. This is an aspect of the problem that I am very much concerned about. Nearly every public house and hotel has a car park, and we have all seen people leaving those places. I appreciate that there are not enough policemen to catch all these people, and the records of people charged with dangerous driving and being drunk in charge are only of those people who are picked up by the police. I want the Minister to tell us what he is going to do about this situation.
The number of those failing to report after accidents in 1952 was 8,133, and in 1953 it was 8,897. In 1953 there were 14 deaths each day on the roads, and for children under 15 the average was over two every day. In 1952 there were 572 accidents every day, out of which 112 were to children under 15 years of age. In 1953 it was worse. There were over 621 accidents every day out of which 121 were to children under 15. In 1952 out of 4,706 killed on the roads, 2,063 were


pedestrians. In 1953 2,233 pedestrians were killed out of a total of 5,090. Of the 208,000 accidents in 1952, 54,503 were to pedestrians, and in 1953 the number of accidents had gone up to 226,770 out of which 58,000, or over a quarter, involved pedestrians.
I want to comment upon some factors which arise out of those figures, because I believe that they merit consideration. Most of our efforts—with a great deal of justification—are concentrated upon preparing our children to be more careful, but we should pay more attention to the motorists. Accidents are always, apparently, the fault of the pedestrian, but the pedestrian does not knock the motor car down; it is the motor car which knocks down the pedestrian.
When we hear talk about the difference between today and the old days, and hear motorists shouting that the roads are not wide enough or well made enough to enable them to go faster, we must remember that the roads were here before the motor cars. The pedestrian does not seem to have any right to be on the roads today. I want to repeat what was said by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on 19th May of this year, in answer to the Question:
… to what extent an area has to be built up, and how far the total of road accidents is taken into account before he"—
that is, the Minister—
imposes a 30 miles per hour speed limit on an urban road in a development area.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said this:
We do not believe that any useful purpose would be served by imposing a speed limit restriction in areas where it is not likely to be observed by motorists."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1954; Vol. 527, c. 2071–2.]
Is the motorist to determine the speed limit? Are the people who are responsible for these deaths on the road to decide how fast they shall go, and whether there shall be a restriction?
I now come to the question of the zebra crossings, which are supposed to afford protection to the pedestrian. What protection does he get from them? There are more accidents today than ever, including those on zebra crossings. I should like to tell the Minister my experience in the last week or so in Liverpool. Last Monday morning, at half-past

eleven, I waited outside Tithebarn Street Station, which is the oldest of the two stations on the Lancashire and Yorkshire line, outside which there is a zebra crossing, and I found two motors parked inside the prohibited area, outside a public house. A constable asked me if one of them was my motor car and I said, "No, it has no right to be there." The constable just laughed, so I went to see the chief constable, who promised to see what he could do about it. Last Thursday morning I went to the same spot and there again, parked inside the prohibited area by the crossing, were two cars. I have written to the chief constable, and it is because I have had no reply from him that I am referring to this question tonight.
A zebra crossing has been taken away from the worst spot in Liverpool—outside the Rotunda Theatre—because there is periodic police control. I should think that at least 30 bus services go past the spot. Nearly all the traffic to the East Lancashire Road, and all the bus services to Bootle, Crosby and the East of Liverpool go past it. It reminds me of a speed trap that I have mentioned before, at a place where there were 139 accidents. Commencing next month there is to be a campaign for safety. The local trades people spent some time considering it.
But the zebra crossings have been taken away. Nobody knows where to cross now. They have taken them away from outside Lime Street Station in Liverpol, so that there is no proper place there for crossing. In some places the distance between one pedestrian crossing and another is half a mile, or three furlongs at least. I believe it is so at Bootle. Where does anyone with children cross the road in safety? Three years ago the number of crossings was reduced, but now the position is worse. "I believe in zebra crossings" says the Minister, but he is not allowing those responsible to operate them.
The penalties for dangerous driving are not enough. I hope that when the time comes for a new Road Act the Minister will make provision for severer penalties and disqualifications. A dangerous driver should get at least 10 years' disqualification. If we want road safety, stringent measures must be taken. People say that we should make the roads wider. I object to the roads being made wider until there


is a better sense of responsibility among the motoring fraternity. I think we ought to do what they do in France and elsewhere where there are dangerous areas, and that is put down cobble stones to prevent speeding.
Speeding worries me more than anything else. Youthful motor cyclists can get driving licences and can then drive the most powerful motor cycles, and we know how dangerous motor cycles are on our roads. Motor cycles need competent drivers. Can anybody dispute that very few motor cycles go at less than 30 miles an hour even in the towns and villages?
Generally speaking, the speed on the roads is too great. Nearly every bus goes over 30 miles an hour day or night, and sometimes even in restricted areas. Unfortunately, the Ministry, as I see it, as well as the local authorities and the police, believe in getting the traffic moving along quicker to do away with the congestion that takes place on the roads. I say that speeding up is responsible for the deaths on the roads more than anything else.
I am sorry I have not had longer to make this case, but I must leave the Minister time to reply. He must consider the murder of our kids on the roads. That is what it amounts to. We expect children of two, three, four and five to be able to approach this problem, to be able to protect themselves. The figures show they do not. What do we do? We promise the motorists better roads so that they may go quicker. They are going too quickly now for the pedestrians. How little is done. I do not know whether the police are to blame.
Although I have not had longer to speak, I have said enough to show how serious the matter is. I have not spoken nearly strongly enough to show how deeply I feel about the matter, to show how strongly the mothers and fathers, the pedestrians and their societies feel about it. Nothing has been done and nothing is being done about the problem of motor drivers who drive at night when they have visited the public houses and the hotels. Tonight there will be thousands of motor drivers who will leave those places, and who will not get caught, but whose driving will show that they really have no right to be in charge of motor vehicles. For these reasons, I now ask the Minister what his Department is going to do.

Although we have an elaborate new Highway Code, it does not go far enough. It says that the motorist should do this and that, but I suggest it should say they must do it and it should penalise them if they do not. I hope I have given the Minister enough time to answer my remarks.

Mr. Paul Williams: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm one point that comes to my mind. If he is willing to ask for more regimentation for the motorists, will he ask for more regimentation for the pedestrian?

Mr. Keenan: As far as I am concerned, I believe the penalty should be on both sides. But what I do say is that the pedestrians are regimented enough at 5,000 deaths a year, or 14 a day. Does anyone want a greater penalty than that?

10.26 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): The hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) has done a public service in alleging on the Floor of the House that our road safety measures have been a failure.

Mr. Keenan: I do not want to be mistaken. I do not say a failure. I want to see more of them, but they have not succeeded as we had hoped.

Mr. Molson: What the hon. Member put down as the subject for his Adjournment debate was "Failure of Road Safety Measures." He might as well stick to the title—

Mr. Keenan: I will do so.

Mr. Molson: —of his own Adjournment.
I am glad to have an opportunity of citing a few figures and facts to show that, so far from that being the case, what has been done by my Department under successive Ministers of both political parties has been remarkably successful during the last few years. We are far from being satisfied, but it is because of what has been done to improve road manners during the last 20 years that we are able to move forward with some confidence to obtaining equally successful results in the future.
The first fact to give us satisfaction is that the crude accident rate in 1953 was lower than it was in 1934. The number of killed fell from 7,343 to 5,090 and the number of injured from 231,603 to 221,680. Those crude figures show an absolute reduction in the number of killed, a reduction that is no measure of the improvement that has taken place in road manners during that time. There has been a steady increase in the population, a still greater increase in the number of aged and there has been a remarkable increase in the numbers of vehicles on the roads. The best way to measure the real improvement is to calculate the number of casualties per 10,000 vehicles upon the roads.

Mr. Keenan: I will not accept that.

Mr. Molson: The hon. Member may not accept it, but that does not alter it from being a fact. The number of fatal casualties per 10,000 vehicles was 32 in 1930, 30·5 in 1934, 22·5 in 1938 and only 9·6 in 1953. The hon. Member has seen fit to disparage our road safety propaganda. It is difficult to persuade people of his generation to listen and to learn about the need to recognise—

Mr. Keenan: Might I ask what the Minister refers to when he speaks of my generation? Am I somebody aged and infirm, who cannot judge? Is that what he is implying? I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman is 10 years younger than I am.

Mr. Molson: When it comes to adopting the humility of being junior, I am always willing to do that when debating with the hon. Gentleman. It is difficult to get the older generation to adopt the measures that are necessary to avoid accidents upon the roads. The same is also true of children under five.
However, we can get at the children of school-going age. During the last 20 years, owing to the public spirited co-operation of the teachers, there has been a very remarkable improvement in the figures for accidents to children of school age. In 1938 the number of children of school-going age killed on the roads was 792. In 1953 it was 510. Since 1934 the number of children of all ages killed per 10,000 vehicles upon the roads has been reduced to one-third. That shows a very remarkable improvement.
This is proof of the value of road safety propaganda. It is a startling improvement when one takes into account the fact that the number of children of school age has increased by about 500,000 and the number of vehicles has increased by 2 million. When considering the tremendous improvement which has taken place in the figures for accidents as a whole one must take into account the number of the aged who are particularly prone to accidents upon the roads and the number of children under the age of five.
The hon. Member asked what more we proposed to do. He referred to the new edition of the Highway Code, which is at present lying on the Table of the House. In view of the constructive criticisms that have been made by hon. Members, by the Press and by others, my right hon. Friend is withdrawing it and he hopes to present a very slightly amended version next week. We hope that the House will approve it before the end of the Session.
We have just completed a three-month campaign in which the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and the Ministry of Transport has been concentrating on the need for greater care with children under the age of five. Their parents should never allow them unaccompanied on busy streets. I have visited four provincial centres and I have tried to stress the importance of that statement. We have also been emphasising the need for training and testing child cyclists before they go out on the road. The number of accidents which occur to child cyclists is a most serious matter.
The hon. Gentleman has been talking about pedestrians. I very much regret that the Pedestrians' Association refused to associate itself with the propaganda which we have been carrying out during the last few months.

Mr. Keenan: On what grounds?

Mr. Molson: We are constantly issuing regulations which, like those requiring twin reflectors on cars and forbidding stopping within 45 feet of the approach side of zebra crossings, are intended to promote safety. My right hon. Friend is also devoting a good proportion of the money available for roads to the elimination of the black spots where most accidents take place.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: That is on the pedestrian crossings.

Mr. Molson: I will now answer one or two of the other points which the hon. Member for Kirkdale has made. We do not intend to increase the number of pedestrian crossings. He and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) have been making encouraging noises to each other during the debate, but, whereas the hon. Gentleman would like to see more pedestrian crossings, his hon. and gallant Friend would like to see fewer of them.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Hear, hear.

Mr. Molson: We have adopted the objective of the right hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes), to reduce the number of pedestrian crossings to one-third. Nor is it our wish to increase the number of 30-mile an hour speed limit areas. For the reasons that I gave, and which the hon. Gentleman quoted, we believe that they should apply only in what are built-up areas. On the contrary, my right hon. Friend has asked the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee to consider whether, in that area, there are cases where the 30-mile an hour speed limit could be done away with.
Just as aviation involves air accidents, so modern road transport involves road accidents. Despite the great increase in the speed of road traffic, the measures taken by my Department under successive Ministers of both political parties, with the efficient and public-spirited help of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, has greatly reduced the accident figures.

Mr. Keenan: It has not.

Mr. Molson: The number of hon. Members who desire to see the improvement and development of traffic held up in the way that the hon. Gentleman has advocated tonight is very small. But we all desire to see a reduction in accidents, and I am glad to be able to state some figures which show the great improvement in road manners which has taken place in the last 20 years.

10.36 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: The Parliamentary Secretary has not dealt with one very important and serious matter. He has not explained why the number of persons killed and injured on zebra crossings is steadily going up. I ask him to publish the figures for the second quarter of this year, which, as in the case of the figures for the first quarter, show an increase in the number of persons injured. He has worked out figures for each 10,000 vehicles on the road, but here we have a device which is supposed to provide safety, a device which he himself admits is unsuitable for old people and young children.
The hon. Gentleman is now going to cut down the number of zebra crossings because he knows that they provide no safety—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-two Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.